or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple cuts off unofficial avenue for rebuffed iPhone apps
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple cuts off unofficial avenue for rebuffed iPhone apps - Page 3

post #81 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbrasington View Post

Well, I guess you're going to LOVE the porn machine from HTC.

The HTC doesn't look like quality, no. But the Android concept is superior to Apples strategy. And I doubt Apple will continue to be hugley successful without changing it once Android has arrived and there are good handsets for it.

The only reason why Apple is currently succesful is because they stirred up the stale handset hardware and UI market. Once the others have caught up, Apple won't have a chance with their closed/controlled/NDAed market model.
post #82 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by hachre View Post

The HTC doesn't look like quality, no. But the Android concept is superior to Apples strategy. And I doubt Apple will continue to be hugley successful without changing it once Android has arrived and there are good handsets for it.

The only reason why Apple is currently succesful is because they stirred up the stale handset hardware and UI market. Once the others have caught up, Apple won't have a chance with their closed/controlled/NDAed market model.

I'm highly skeptical that this Android platform is going to be all rosy as some are painting it, but we shall see how successful it is, highly doubt it would be as successful as Apple's offering. From what they released yesterday, they have a long way to go.
post #83 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by hachre View Post

The HTC doesn't look like quality, no. But the Android concept is superior to Apples strategy. And I doubt Apple will continue to be hugley successful without changing it once Android has arrived and there are good handsets for it.

The only reason why Apple is currently succesful is because they stirred up the stale handset hardware and UI market. Once the others have caught up, Apple won't have a chance with their closed/controlled/NDAed market model.


You are so wrong it's funny. The Android will validate Apple's strategy very quickly. The complete chaos that will ensue once this thing is on the market will be a sight to see. With no controls on who or how apps are developed the results will be a complete collapse of the model. The Android devices will be extremely crash prone because of conflicting code, something Apple is trying to control. No, you have the facts in reverse. Google will be forced to adopt the Apple model if it is to have any chance of surviving. And you can take that to the bank.
post #84 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by hypermark View Post

Others have said it before but it is worth re-stating. If App Store was simply A distribution point for iPhone/iPod touch apps, it would be one thing. But when App Store is THE sole distribution point for those apps, I would assert that the responsibility bar is higher for Apple not to F-CK its developers, or have a whiff of smelling like it is doing same to a sizable constituency of its base, as is the case here.

Perception is reality.

Apple develops hardware like iPhone and iPod Touch platforms and opens the app store allowing developers a brand new market they didn't have before.

Apple develops the SDK xCode tool set making it easier for developers.

Apple offers developers worldwide distribution and handles all sales expenses and effort for only a 30 percent cut.

iTunes software free for both Windows and Mac etc etc etc.

Look guys don't bite off the hand that feeds you. Think about what you'd have if Apple decided to really say f**k you and became a Sprint or Verizon.

All Apple did was to required that developer play by Apple's rules. That's not unreasonable or anti-competitive for what they give you.
post #85 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Olternaut View Post

I don't get it though. Why is Apple keeping people from developing for the iphone and ipod touch applications that would truly solidfiy the platform for the long term future?

Ask AT&T and the world carriers selling iPhone that want to make sure the OS X running on the iPhone doesn't have a means to hack their network and wreak havoc to hundreds of millions of customers and their private billing information.
post #86 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by a_greer View Post

as a shade-tree programmer, looking at cell platforms to toy with, this is a huge strike against Apple for me: I could spend months developing a great app just to be blocked from the marketplace because Apple decides to based on some mysterious standard? and hey, as if that werent enough of a reason, a java app will work on BB and android, Obj-c is iphone only...and frankly, xcode sucks: so why dev for the iphone again?

as a user of the iphone platform, this is frustrating, I want podcasting in the iphone, there is no acceptable excuse why it was left out, and blocking that app was unforgivable.


Apple is on the verge of "jumping the shark" they are treading on MS mid 90s territory here. ala killing netscape as it was a competitor to its own product.

Sign up, read the terms and re-read what you wrote. There never was a mystery unless you accept the fact that developers failed to "read" the terms and conditions of the SDK when they signed on.

They weren't blind-sided. And for their "confusion" they didn't contact Apple until they had written an application that if they had "read" the terms never would have been developed without first clarifying with Apple.

In short, they either blindly chose to ignore the terms or have intentionally preyed upon the ignorance of the non-developer community to create bad press for Apple and great press for Android.
post #87 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by ljocampo View Post

Apple develops hardware like iPhone and iPod Touch platforms and opens the app store allowing developers a brand new market they didn't have before.

Apple develops the SDK xCode tool set making it easier for developers.

Apple offers developers worldwide distribution and handles all sales expenses and effort for only a 30 percent cut.

iTunes software free for both Windows and Mac etc etc etc.

Look guys don't bite off the hand that feeds you. Think about what you'd have if Apple decided to really say f**k you and became a Sprint or Verizon.

All Apple did was to required that developer play by Apple's rules. That's not unreasonable or anti-competitive for what they give you.

Like I said, perception is reality. The comparison to Sprint and Verizon doesn't work because part of what Apple needs to do to be successful with iPhone/iPod touch is to drive the best and brightest to build killer apps for the platform, whereas Sprint/Verizon are service providers loyal/dependent upon whatever device is most compelling to its audience. This is a platform play, something that becomes painfully clear when developers opt first to develop for another platform, as was the case when Windows became the platform of choice for developers, despite the Mac being arguably superior.

And worth noting, there was a point in time where Apple was in EXACTLY the same position. Heck, Microsoft was cow-towing to Apple because it was the most innovative platform at the time. Then they co-opted them, partnered better and built a bigger ecosystem.

My only point is that history is clear on this one. Good competitors will filter into the market, platform plays are all about securing the hearts and minds of developers (not the other way around), perception has a way of becoming reality, and the uproar by lots of usually Apple loving folks (myself included) is suggestive of more than "we're confused" or "get over it."
post #88 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbrasington View Post

Easy.

Consider building an application for the iPhone, that will stream NBC content for free.
Now, the content I'm going to stream is also available for sale on iTunes.
That content, from iTunes, provides a revenue stream to Apple and also to the actual owner of the content..... NBC.
Apple has an agreement with NBC over that content.

Apple also has an agreement with me as a developer.

These agreements are meant to keep us all protected and safe.

Now, YOU seem to want to spur "inovation" by allowing me to stream content owned by others for free, in the face of the litigation that it would cause to Apple.

Stealing other people's content and supplying it for free is not inovation.
It's stealing.
The podcast system described can download a lot more than just a podcast and doesn't deal with ownership issues.

NOTE: If you substitute iTunes and NBC above for an example that would be a company providing material via Amazon or some other outlet it doesn't change anything. Apple is not in the business of destroying intellectual property rights or copyright infringment.
If that's the inovation you're looking for, you won't find it here or on Android.

Yes yes use stupid easy examples and imply stuff I didn't say to support your view. Good job!
I want you to continue saying that the next time we find out of yet another useful application that was rejected after hard work by the developer and with no apparent reason.
post #89 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

You are so wrong it's funny. The Android will validate Apple's strategy very quickly. The complete chaos that will ensue once this thing is on the market will be a sight to see. With no controls on who or how apps are developed the results will be a complete collapse of the model. The Android devices will be extremely crash prone because of conflicting code, something Apple is trying to control. No, you have the facts in reverse. Google will be forced to adopt the Apple model if it is to have any chance of surviving. And you can take that to the bank.

I think you need to lay off the kool-aid a bit.
post #90 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by hypermark View Post

Like I said, perception is reality. The comparison to Sprint and Verizon doesn't work because part of what Apple needs to do to be successful with iPhone/iPod touch is to drive the best and brightest to build killer apps for the platform, whereas Sprint/Verizon are service providers loyal/dependent upon whatever device is most compelling to its audience. This is a platform play, something that becomes painfully clear when developers opt first to develop for another platform, as was the case when Windows became the platform of choice for developers, despite the Mac being arguably superior.

And worth noting, there was a point in time where Apple was in EXACTLY the same position. Heck, Microsoft was cow-towing to Apple because it was the most innovative platform at the time. Then they co-opted them, partnered better and built a bigger ecosystem.

My only point is that history is clear on this one. Good competitors will filter into the market, platform plays are all about securing the hearts and minds of developers (not the other way around), perception has a way of becoming reality, and the uproar by lots of usually Apple loving folks (myself included) is suggestive of more than "we're confused" or "get over it."

My point was Apple owes us nothing but has given us everything we are arguing about. Apple probably doesn't want to compete with Windows platforms and surely doesn't NEED to. It's doing just fine with its niche. The telcos gave us sh*t until iPhone stole their thunder and forced them to make better interfaces. Apple's ITunes, iPods, Computers did the same for their markets, and and now Apple entering the mobile software Apps and mobile games market will do it for handhelds. We have all gained form Apple policies. They don't deserve this negativism.
post #91 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post

Sorry, I didn't mean to come across as though I was making totally unsubstantiated assumptions. I was simply working from Steve Job's public references to the ad-hoc distribution method back at the SDK announcement event.

I am curious as to exactly how that distribution method, announced right out of Steve Jobs' lips, is intended to be applied. Or, as the case may be, whether Apple might have decided to retract that option without fanfare.

"The Apps Store is going to be the exclusive way to distribute your applications." 1:026:24 mark of the "Apple March 6 Event: iPhone Software Roadmap" podcast

Also, look at the "limitations" discussed at the 1:07:47 mark.

Then at the WWDC 2008 Keynote Address, Ad Hoc distribution was introduced that allows certified developers to distribute their apps to 100 registered iPhones at the 1:06:02 mark.

Note that both podcasts are available via the iTunes store.
post #92 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_cazorp View Post

Absolutely disgusting.

What are you talking about? Apple is a business, they're trying to protect their revenue stream for the iPhone. You don't like it, move to Cuba.
post #93 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

"The Apps Store is going to be the exclusive way to distribute your applications." 1:026:24 mark of the "Apple March 6 Event: iPhone Software Roadmap" podcast

Also, look at the "limitations" discussed at the 1:07:47 mark.

Then at the WWDC 2008 Keynote Address, Ad Hoc distribution was introduced that allows certified developers to distribute their apps to 100 registered iPhones at the 1:06:02 mark.

Note that both podcasts are available via the iTunes store.

Ok, so which announcement is telling the truth?

Is the iTunes App Store the exclusive (ie. no alternatives exist) means of distributing the apps, like the 1st webcast says?

Or, are certified developers allowed to ad-hoc distribute their apps to 100 registered iPhones like the 2nd webcast (and Apple's own website) says?
post #94 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post

Ok, so which announcement is telling the truth?

Is the iTunes App Store the exclusive (ie. no alternatives exist) means of distributing the apps, like the 1st webcast says?

Or, are certified developers allowed to ad-hoc distribute their apps to 100 registered iPhones like the 2nd webcast (and Apple's own website) says?

Are you implying that one is a lie?

They both were telling the truth. The "exclusive" distribution was presented at the Apple March 6 Event: iPhone Software Roadmap keynote in March and the Ad-hoc distribution which is highly restricted was introduced 3 months later. Makes sense. Developers requested it and Apple complied.

To Phyzlxxxxx: If you are around you may want to check out http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...downloads.html. Looks like Blu-Ray is not doing well.
post #95 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by winterspan View Post

And you would be the old-as-dirt, cynical curmudgeon?

Why does expecting to get paid for real work make him a curmudgeon? Kids without careers, cars, homes or families can give their work away. For them it's incidental, and makes them look cool to the other freeloaders.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply
post #96 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

Are you implying that one is a lie?

They both were telling the truth. The "exclusive" distribution was presented at the Apple March 6 Event: iPhone Software Roadmap keynote in March and the Ad-hoc distribution which is highly restricted was introduced 3 months later. Makes sense. Developers requested it and Apple complied.

But you had previously stated:
Quote:
They signed an NDA that explicitly stated that they could not distribute any app they developed with the iPhone SDK outside the Apple iTunes store

Taken at face value, that statement appears to be in direct contradiction with the fact that the option of ad-hoc distribution is known to exist.

Now, it is possible that you meant to say something along the lines of,
"They signed an NDA that explicitly stated that if they wanted to distribute any app they developed with the iPhone SDK outside the Apple iTunes store, they'd need to meet specific eligibility requirements to do so on an ad-hoc basis"
But that's not what you said.
post #97 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

I don't do software, but my web store costs, including merchant card fees, Google Adsense advertising and the web store service cost about 10% of the sale price. Hosting costs for me is pretty trivial as well, I think I get up to 75GB of transfer for $7.50/mo.

That said, that's a pretty shaky work-around. I wonder if Apple would even allow something like an MMO game, where you might buy the software, but you still need to pay a subscription service to keep your account active.

10% Adsense + $7.50 hosting + $025 CC fee + 3% CC fee + customer service + returns + website maintenance + other forms of advertising, factor in the time you could've been doing something else like adding a new product may very well exceed 30%.

Adsense prices depend on how competitive the market is, and for the iPhone it's pretty hot. Adsense for the iPhone is anywhere between $0.50 to over $1.00 per click.

I think the App Store is a great deal, Apple handles billing, CC transactions, hosting, limitless data transfer, advertising, your own page on the App Store, and awesome development tools. I think whoever gets all that for FREE and then tries to bypass Apple when it comes to money, is violating Apple's rights.
bb
Reply
bb
Reply
post #98 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by ljocampo View Post

Apple develops hardware like iPhone and iPod Touch platforms and opens the app store allowing developers a brand new market they didn't have before.

Apple develops the SDK xCode tool set making it easier for developers.

Apple offers developers worldwide distribution and handles all sales expenses and effort for only a 30 percent cut.

iTunes software free for both Windows and Mac etc etc etc.

Look guys don't bite off the hand that feeds you. Think about what you'd have if Apple decided to really say f**k you and became a Sprint or Verizon.

All Apple did was to required that developer play by Apple's rules. That's not unreasonable or anti-competitive for what they give you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hypermark View Post

Like I said, perception is reality. The comparison to Sprint and Verizon doesn't work because part of what Apple needs to do to be successful with iPhone/iPod touch is to drive the best and brightest to build killer apps for the platform, whereas Sprint/Verizon are service providers loyal/dependent upon whatever device is most compelling to its audience. This is a platform play, something that becomes painfully clear when developers opt first to develop for another platform, as was the case when Windows became the platform of choice for developers, despite the Mac being arguably superior.

And worth noting, there was a point in time where Apple was in EXACTLY the same position. Heck, Microsoft was cow-towing to Apple because it was the most innovative platform at the time. Then they co-opted them, partnered better and built a bigger ecosystem.

My only point is that history is clear on this one. Good competitors will filter into the market, platform plays are all about securing the hearts and minds of developers (not the other way around), perception has a way of becoming reality, and the uproar by lots of usually Apple loving folks (myself included) is suggestive of more than "we're confused" or "get over it."

Quote:
Originally Posted by ljocampo View Post

My point was Apple owes us nothing but has given us everything we are arguing about. Apple probably doesn't want to compete with Windows platforms and surely doesn't NEED to. It's doing just fine with its niche. The telcos gave us sh*t until iPhone stole their thunder and forced them to make better interfaces. Apple's ITunes, iPods, Computers did the same for their markets, and and now Apple entering the mobile software Apps and mobile games market will do it for handhelds. We have all gained form Apple policies. They don't deserve this negativism.

We disagree, and my reference to Windows platforms is a historical one; namely, that Apple was arrogant about having a better platform and that arrogance led to A LOT of pain and suffering once the initial wave of euphoria wore off since Microsoft became the gorilla not Apple.

My thesis is that history is repeating itself, and the irony is that in a candid moment where Jobs/Gates shared the stage together, Jobs himself acknowledged wishing that they had embraced good partnering in their DNA earlier. I think that this is a perpetual struggle for the company, and when faced with gray areas, they act in ways inconsistent with good partnering. It's really that simple.

In interested, check out the YouTube video at 3:15 into it (or so).

Again, the question isn't whether Apple has raised the bar (they have). It isn't whether they have a right to do what they want (they do). It's a question of what it means to partner well, especially in the context of a platform play, and whether that will serve them in the long run. To the extent developers conclude that categories are closed to them and/or that Apple is predatorial, they will look for better alternatives. If/when that translates to App Store looking like the 99 cent only store as opposed to Nordstroms, they will have won the battle only to lose the war.

Mark
--
Read - Apple: White Hat, Black Hat
http://thenetworkgarden.com/weblog/2...ter-perce.html
post #99 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post

But you had previously stated:

Taken at face value, that statement appears to be in direct contradiction with the fact that the option of ad-hoc distribution is known to exist.

Now, it is possible that you meant to say something along the lines of,
"They signed an NDA that explicitly stated that if they wanted to distribute any app they developed with the iPhone SDK outside the Apple iTunes store, they'd need to meet specific eligibility requirements to do so on an ad-hoc basis"
But that's not what you said.

When the iPhone SDK was launched in March, the only way a developer could distribute apps to all iPhone and iPod Touch users was and still is via iTunes.

At the WWDC 2008 Conference keynote, Jobs announced that Enterprise could develop and distribute their custom apps to their intranet and only their approved employees could securely access, download and use them via iTunes. In addition, Apple expanded the developer certification program to allow groups, like University classes to register 100 iPhones to personally use custom apps. Like Enterprise, Ad Hoc distribution must be synced thru iTunes.

And today, there is a fourth way, i.e., the iPhone Developer University Program.

Note, however, the only way you can distribute iPhone apps is via iTunes, and the only way you can distribute iPhone apps to all iPhone and iPod Touch users is via the App Store.
post #100 of 137
Well, I am not a developer and I have never read the developer contract and don't need to. This is a matter of common sense of which Almerica has shown itself to be completely bereft. It makes perfect sense that the phone, the iPod/iTunes function, and safari and related internet functions are off limits. One of the first things people were excited about with the announcement of the SDK was the possibility of VOIP on the iPhone. This is an absurd notion. Apple is not going to let people screw ATT or any other partner by letting people make free calls on the iPhone. They just as well allow sim unlocking. Apple will not allow Real Player (thank God) to place an app on the phone to side step iTunes. Nor would they let podcasts or movies, or TV shows, or photos, or anything else without going through iTunes. Amazon will never have a music downloading app for the iPhone. Flash will never go on the iPhone without Apple's permission. All of these core functions are, and should be protected by Apple. It is their property and business model. Anyone who does not like that should go buy a Verizon phone and see if they like those set of restrictions better.

The simple fact is the app store is a huge playground. There is plenty of room to play for everyone. There will always be those who like to push the boundaries and will veer too close to the electric fence. Well these guys got what they deserved. Make apps that are well within the acceptable range of common sense and developers can make a lot of money. Try to challenge Apple from within their own playpen and you can expect to get burned.
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
post #101 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac Voyer View Post

Well, I am not a developer and I have never read the developer contract and don't need to. This is a matter of common sense of which Almerica has shown itself to be completely bereft. It makes perfect sense that the phone, the iPod/iTunes function, and safari and related internet functions are off limits. One of the first things people were excited about with the announcement of the SDK was the possibility of VOIP on the iPhone. This is an absurd notion. Apple is not going to let people screw ATT or any other partner by letting people make free calls on the iPhone. They just as well allow sim unlocking. Apple will not allow Real Player (thank God) to place an app on the phone to side step iTunes. Nor would they let podcasts or movies, or TV shows, or photos, or anything else without going through iTunes. Amazon will never have a music downloading app for the iPhone. Flash will never go on the iPhone without Apple's permission. All of these core functions are, and should be protected by Apple. It is their property and business model. Anyone who does not like that should go buy a Verizon phone and see if they like those set of restrictions better.

The simple fact is the app store is a huge playground. There is plenty of room to play for everyone. There will always be those who like to push the boundaries and will veer too close to the electric fence. Well these guys got what they deserved. Make apps that are well within the acceptable range of common sense and developers can make a lot of money. Try to challenge Apple from within their own playpen and you can expect to get burned.

completely agree. Apple doesn't owe these people anything. I know of no other company that has given its developers more. Give a finger and they want an arm.

@hyperlink: I hear what your saying and agree to most of it on an altruistic basis, but this is business not the sociology. Once Apple opens their platform to anyone, their competitors will take advantage. The Almerica is this particular case in point.
post #102 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post

10% Adsense

You misread, seemingly deliberately. For me, CC merchant fees + adsense + hosting fees TOTAL about 10%. The base fee for my transactions is a dime, not a quarter. I almost don't get requests for returns (maybe 0.1%), I don't know if Apple refunds money anyway. That said, I'm not selling $0.99 items either, but Apple's system is highly automated.
post #103 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

To Phyzlxxxxx: If you are around you may want to check out http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...downloads.html. Looks like Blu-Ray is not doing well.

The problem with that article and similar ones that came out this week are that those numbers go up and down a lot week to week, largely based on what is released that week. The article takes two data points and tries to spin it as a collapse while ignoring the track record.

This feed has articles that show the numbers for each week going back about six months:

http://www.engadgethd.com/tag/VideoScan/
post #104 of 137
They can scream NDA all they want. You can't send someone a letter and first in the letter claim NDA. You can tell them up front "if you want correspondence from us you must agree to an NDA". But they can't change the rules this far after the fact.

Apple: really showing how much they suck. Pass the Kool-Aid.
post #105 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fairly View Post

Apple: really showing how much they suck. Pass the Kool-Aid™.

Geeeez, Don't let the door kick you on the way out. You don't like Apple don't buy Apple. Then you'll have more time to whine about Microsoft.
post #106 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

The problem with that article and similar ones that came out this week are that those numbers go up and down a lot week to week, largely based on what is released that week. The article takes two data points and tries to spin it as a collapse while ignoring the track record.

The track record doesn't say anything different. Averaging it all out DVD is around 90% and Blu-ray around 10%.
post #107 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

The track record doesn't say anything different. Averaging it all out DVD is around 90% and Blu-ray around 10%.

But adding BR doesn't forsake DVD. You can play DVDs on a BR player. Burn them too, AFAIK.

How are they going to justify $2,000-$2700 prices with DVDs as your optical drive? Sorry, but even though optical drives are less important most buyers are going to want BR optical at that price.
post #108 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

The track record doesn't say anything different. Averaging it all out DVD is around 90% and Blu-ray around 10%.

Yes it does. Please consider it just a bit more. That article was taking a snapshot and trying to play it as a format diminishing because of one week-to-week drop, especially when it's happened a few times over the past few months when the more popular movies get released, then goes down a few percent on the "lul" weeks. That's a lot like looking at Apple's stock this week from last week and saying Apple is in trouble.

A 10% share really isn't bad. So far the trend is pretty good, the average was around 5% earlier this year, and we got a few 12% peaks more recently.
post #109 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

But adding BR doesn't forsake DVD. You can play DVDs on a BR player. Burn them too, AFAIK.

How are they going to justify $2,000-$2700 prices with DVDs as your optical drive? Sorry, but even though optical drives are less important most buyers are going to want BR optical at that price.

It's not about forsaking DVD. DVD sales are themselves slowing. The market is depending less on optical media. The price of the notebook has little to do with the optical drive. More to do with the $500 processors the notebook is using.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

A 10% share really isn't bad. So far the trend is pretty good, the average was around 5% earlier this year, and we got a few 12% peaks more recently.

BR doesn't offer the same degree of advancment that DVD brought. I think BR needs to be quick and decisive in replacing DVD. Their is too much competition today. I don't see much excitment in the general market for BR.
post #110 of 137
Consumer Electronic BluRay @$149 that supports current DVD player standards, with HDMI, yada yada and:



For Example:

http://www.onecall.com/ProductDetails.aspx?id=89657



Cut this from the current $299 [down from it's original $499] to $149 and they will fly off the shelves.


Computer BluRay ROM/DVD-DL Burner @$99 will sky rocket sales.

For Example:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16827129016



Drop it from it's current $179.99 to $99 and these will fly off the shelves.
post #111 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fairly View Post

They can scream NDA all they want. You can't send someone a letter and first in the letter claim NDA. You can tell them up front "if you want correspondence from us you must agree to an NDA". But they can't change the rules this far after the fact.

Apple: really showing how much they suck. Pass the Kool-Aid™.

Here's your bucket. Start shoveling in that barf. You either don't develop for the iPhone or can't read your legal agreements. Every communication from the day you sign on and accept the terms are under NDA.

Need a spoon or do you just go straight from the bucket?
post #112 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

I don't think it's so certain. I've seen and heard plenty of programmers refer to HTML and XML as code.

An example from Peach-Pit:
http://www.peachpit.com/store/produc...sbn=0321559673

I've found quite a few articles on O'Reilly using "code" with XML.

Personally I disagree with that usage; *ML files might be source files but they aren't code in the way that Javascript or Pascal are, IMO. Regardless of my opinion on that, this statement:

Quote:
You do realize that reading and interpreting virtually any data feed: HTML, XML, or any other formatted data file is effectively running interpreted third-party code?

is incorrect. HTML is translated into a document that might contain embedded code, but you don't run HTML, you display it. You might as well claim that playing an MP2 video stream is running third-party code, which it patently isn't.
My Android phone is the worst phone I've ever owned.
Reply
My Android phone is the worst phone I've ever owned.
Reply
post #113 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


Sorry mdriftmeyer, but I think that it WRITES AND READS DVD/CD and only READS Blu-Ray discs http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16827129016
post #114 of 137
Wait a minute....

The Ad Hoc distribution system was designed for distributing applications to a set of registered iPhones (up to 100) for testing purpose but also in situations like in a university where a teacher wants to deploy an application for teaching purpose to his students. So the main purpose of Ad Hoc is to share some applications among a limited number of people by email or by posting them on a web site or server, not to sell applications in order to bypass the App store.

This is totally against the iPhone developer program agreement that the podcaster's developer agreed and signed when he joined the iPhone developer program.

I am developer and i joined the program, it was clearly stated in the usage conditions that any distribution of applications by means of selling it via Ad Hoc was not allowed. So why it is surprising for some trolls here that Apple takes action to stop the illegal thing that Sokirynsky is doing? Illegal regarding to Apple agreement which again he signed and was agree with.

So now, one can argue about the reasons why Apple has rejected podcaster, but i find difficult to argue against the reasons why Apple has stopped Sokirynsky to distribute Podcaster via Ad Hoc. It was simply not allowed and Sokirynsky knew it when he did it.

No one is forcing Sokirynsky to obey the rules, but if he agreed that he does (and he did by joining the iPhone developer program) then he should respect the rules of the agreement that he signed for.

Many people are telling non sense because they don't know anything about what it is about, and what are the rules that developer signed for when they develop for iPhone.

We hear a lot things about this App store rejection policy and a lot of accusations against Apple, most of the time incorrect or based on wrong facts. I do agree that Apple needs to clear up the issues and states more clearly what it is going on and what is their policy for applications like Podcaster. It it does not, it can't help Apple and a lot of misunderstanding will continue which ultimately can hurt the platform.

But i do believe that one should separate the real issues that Apple has to address, to declarations which are purely sensational.

Again, this issue with the Ad Hoc distribution is actually a non-issue as it was clearly stated by Apple that this distribution mechanism is not for selling applications. Period. You agree, fine, you don't, then you don't sign for it.
post #115 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

When the iPhone SDK was launched in March, the only way a developer could distribute apps to all iPhone and iPod Touch users was (...) via iTunes.

Undeniably true. My memory was jogged about this fact a few posts ago when you reminded me of the fact that the SDK announcement event and the WWDC keynote. Thank you.

Quote:
...and still is...

In that iTunes is the only authorized vehicle through which any App can be synched between your computer and your iPod/iPod touch, this is also undeniably true 100% of the time. However, this does not currently correspond to 100% of the time having to be distributed through the App Store, which had been your original assertion. (The University program is a perfect illustration of this fact.)

Quote:
At the WWDC 2008 Conference keynote, Jobs announced that Enterprise could develop and distribute their custom apps to their intranet and only their approved employees could securely access, download and use them via iTunes. In addition, Apple expanded the developer certification program to allow groups, like University classes to register 100 iPhones to personally use custom apps. Like Enterprise, Ad Hoc distribution must be synced thru iTunes.

That sounds reasonable, but it completely fails to contribute to your assertion that the App Store was the only vehicle of App distribution (as opposed to installation). In fact, it argues against that very assertion.

Also, Apple's iPhone Developer Program website says quite clearly that ad-hoc distribution is available with both the Enterprise and the Standard program. It is listed under a totally separate heading than their description of the Enterprise deployment option, and separately from their description of the University program.

Quote:
Note, however, the only way you can distribute iPhone apps is via iTunes, and the only way you can distribute iPhone apps to all iPhone and iPod Touch users is via the App Store.

(Emphasis mine)
They only way you can distribute to all iPhone and iPod touch users is through the App Store. But Apple's own website says that if you just want to distribute to a subset of 100 individual iPod touch or iPhone users, then the App Store can be bypassed.


Now, I don't mean to say that Apple was necessarily in the wrong in this case. I just wanted to clarify that I thought you were making a misleading statement about the possibility of Ad-Hoc app distribution in general.

The iPhone SDK license agreement lists some things that are off-limit for Apps in general, and if Apple discovers that your Apps are doing some of those off-limit things, then they have every right to revoke your license to the SDK. If you lose your license to the SDK, then it stands to reason that you'd no longer be able to digitally sign your Apps, and that therefore Ad-Hoc distribution would no longer work.

Personally, I suspect this has much more to do with the distributor in question having written a program with functionality that Apple considered to be in violation of the SDK's license agreement. Apple first tried to inform the author that his App was non-conforming, thereby giving him a chance to bring his program into conformance. Instead, the author continued to actively try to distribute the non-conforming application; Apple simply exercised the right it always had to revoke the SDK license.

This is not a denial of the ability of a developer to use Ad-Hoc distribution in general, but is rather a reaffirmation of the limits Apple has placed on the ways that that Apps are allowed to behave no matter how they're distributed.
post #116 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

It's not about forsaking DVD. DVD sales are themselves slowing. The market is depending less on optical media. The price of the notebook has little to do with the optical drive. More to do with the $500 processors the notebook is using.

I agree that the market is less dependent on optical media and its importance to consumers is less but BR is still the latest and greatest.

A MBP without a BR drive will see its sales plummet at Apple's current prices.
post #117 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post

(Emphasis mine)
They only way you can distribute to all iPhone and iPod touch users is through the App Store. But Apple's own website says that if you just want to distribute to a subset of 100 individual iPod touch or iPhone users, then the App Store can be bypassed.

Careful. What I said was:

"Note, however, the only way you can distribute iPhone apps is via iTunes, and the only way you can distribute iPhone apps to all iPhone and iPod Touch users is via the App Store."

In other words, if you develop an app and want to distribute it re Enterprise or Ad Hoc, you must use iTunes. I said or implied nothing about using or having to use the App Store.
post #118 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

A MBP without a BR drive will see its sales plummet at Apple's current prices.

I've seen no correlation between computer sales and BR sales. Where have you seen it?
post #119 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

Sorry mdriftmeyer, but I think that it WRITES AND READS DVD/CD and only READS Blu-Ray discs http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16827129016

Also OS X doesn't support BR DRM. Without that their is no way to watch BR movies on a Mac.
post #120 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

I've seen no correlation between computer sales and BR sales. Where have you seen it?

Time will tell.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple cuts off unofficial avenue for rebuffed iPhone apps