or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Jailbreak stores plot to plunder iPhone app revenue
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Jailbreak stores plot to plunder iPhone app revenue

post #1 of 43
Thread Starter 
At least three groups are working to syphon cash from Apple's river of revenue between iPhone users and third party developers. Accomplishing that will require inducing more jailbreaking of iPhones, ensuring contention from Apple itself.

Following its existing iTunes game plan, Apple originally set up the iPhone App Store primarily to create a rich software library to attract the attention of potential phone shoppers rather than to make money on the software itself. The company proposed charging developers much less (a 30% cut rather than the more typical 40% to 70% of other online software stores) and handling all their promotion, updates, and sales transactions in the hope that an attractive market for mobile software would induce development.

The resulting success of the App Store has been a surprise even to Apple's executives. Mobile software downloads for the iPod touch and iPhone have been growing at a rate at least double that of the launch of iPod music sales, which had been a blockbuster event in itself.

On its six month path to the first half billion software downloads, Apple struggled to keep up with application requests from interested developers and wrestled with policy issues over the rejection of certain software titles based on content offensiveness, user privacy issues, and interference with the company's own goals, such as an attempt to build a copy/paste system using undocumented APIs.

Jailbreak wars

Those restrictions have resulted in a very successful App Store full of mainstream content without much that could offend anyone or result in spyware problems or piles of shoddy software that might significantly ding the iPhone's image. But it also results in complaints from groups that want to sell porn, or to access features that are not yet open to development. That includes video recording, Bluetooth features, and anything that wants to talk to external hardware peripherals through the Dock Connector.

Getting around Apple's restrictions means jailbreaking the iPhone, a step that bypasses its code signing security system to allow the device to run any software. That step complicates system software updates for Apple and opens the device to the spyware and adware business models familiar to Windows users that Apple worked hard to prevent from taking root in its new platform.

Apple has challenged attempts by the EFF to open up an exemption in the DMCA that would make it much harder for the company to stop the copyright infringement of its firmware and possibly even result in widespread iPhone software piracy that could topple the success of the App Store entirely, just as casual file trading gutted the music business.

Jailbreak stores

At the same time, some developers who got started on the iPhone prior to the release of its official Software Development Kit have sought to find funding sources for continuing their efforts. To most users, the jailbreak scene is now obsolete. However, there are still some types of apps that can't be delivered using Apple's official tools and store. Those developers can only give their tools away; they naturally want to sell their work, too.

Jay Freeman, the creator of Cydia, graphical wrapper for APT (Advanced Packaging Tool, a freeware software download tool for Debian Linux), wants to sell unofficial software in parallel with Apple's App Store for the same 30% cut, but without security code signing and without the quality control and content restrictions Apple imposes.

That would allow Freeman to sell his Cycorder video recording app, something Apple won't carry in the App Store because it accesses hardware features outside of the official APIs. It would also enable Freeman to earn a cut on sales of titles like PdaNET, a tethering app that would enable users to hog 3G mobile bandwidth to get a network connection on their laptop, a violation of Apple's service agreement with AT&T and forbidden under Apple's "no networking hogging" clause in its third party developer contract.

A Wall Street Journal article also cited two other attempts to similarly market unofficial software, one called Rock Your Phone, similar to Cydia, and another hoping to specialize in adult games. The key issue in each of these stores is Apple's right to run its own platform.

Who owns the iPhone platform?

"The overworking goal is to provide choice," Freeman told the Wall Street Journal. "It's understandable that [Apple] wants to control things, but it has been very limiting for developers and users."

Also writing on the subject of unofficial app sellers, InformationWeek complained that "developers continue to have applications rejected for things like ridiculing public figures, censorship that wouldn't be tolerated in print or other traditional media."

However, Apple isn't censoring speech by limiting what software it chooses to sell in its store or on its platform, any more than it is censoring speech by not stocking porn mags and political tracts in its retail outlets. Anyone can publish their opinion on the web, which is fully available, unfiltered, in the iPhone's web browser. The real issue is whether Apple has the right to build a platform it manages and secures as a competitive alternative to the unmanaged, unsecured mobile software platforms that already exist.

How Apple lost its Mac platform

In the early 80s, Apple gave up control over the emerging Mac platform to third party developers. The first step was that third party developers demanded that Apple not build its own office apps for the Mac as it had for the Lisa, thus providing them with greater opportunities for selling Mac software.

Apple's closest third party software partner, Microsoft, then took Apple's unique ideas (for a standardized graphical environment that was far more usable than its Xerox predecessors) and tied them to the existing IBM DOS PC monopoly, choking off Apple's hardware sales.

Microsoft then shelved support for its Office apps on the Mac in the early 90s, leaving Mac users without access to modern productivity software, despite the fact that Office had originated on the Mac as an Apple-allowed success story to appease third party developers rather than offering its own Mac office apps as it had for the Lisa.

Third party developers then got Apple to officially sanction their practice of patching the Mac's low level system software, which resulted in System 7's "Extension conflicts," which caused instability and crashing as well as throwing up complications to Apple's own ability to advance its software platform.

Successful platforms require leadership

Apple's failure to lead the classic Mac platform destroyed it within a decade. Palm similarly destroyed its Palm OS mobile platform by failing to aggressively incite developers to move with it, and instead simply bogged down and became irrelevant instead.

With Mac OS X, Apple accommodates new features as carrots to induce developers to stay current on its latest releases. It maintains a rapid pace of development and keeps users excited, ensuring that developers have an healthy audience to sell their products to.

Microsoft's Windows did the same thing in the 90s, pushing developers to adopt new features that would tie them closer to the platform. Microsoft's huge audience of users kept developers coming even as the company devoured them as competitors as it expanded its Office suite and moved into new markets from media playback to development tools to browsers to server products.

Jailbreak stores no threat?

Meanwhile, analyst Charlie Wolf for Needham and Company has issued an investor note stating that the risk of jailbreak vendors "cutting into Apples software sales" as suggested by the Wall Street Journal "misses the point on two counts."

"First, the rogue stores will be limited to selling applications the iTunes App Store wont sell," Wolf argued, "largely offensive apps, not any of the 25,000 the Store has approved and is selling. So the App Store should experience no loss of revenues from the sale of rejected applications by competing stores.

"Second, as the story notes but fails to emphasize, the only purpose of the iTunes App Store is to lock iPhone owners to the iPhone and hopefully sell more iPhones to application-centric customers. As such, Apple manages the App Store as a breakeven operation." Wolf also wrote that "Third-party application stores could actually benefit Apple to the extent that they attract and lock in additional customers to the iPhone."

As noted in its comments on the EFF case, Apple doesn't necessarily see things that way, viewing jailbreaking as a threat to the iPhone's security model and an expensive support issue that generates millions of crash reports the company has to wade through. Additionally, because "rogue stores" are not seeking to build a platform but rather just to make a quick profit, they have no real interest in preventing software piracy. One of the main features of jailbreaking is that cracked phones no longer respect FairPlay DRM, enabling them to run stolen programs from any App Store developer rather than supporting the platform with micropayments of a dollar or two.

That threat to Apple's wild success in selling mobile software among so many failed previous attempts raises the stakes significantly, ensuring that the company will fight to keep jailbreaking out of the commercial mainstream. There's no doubt that iPhone 3.0, due for release this summer, will play a major role in that effort to make the App Store too attractive for competition.
post #2 of 43
Market forces are driving this I believe.

I wonder how long Apple can keep up its integrated way of offering services.
post #3 of 43
All Apple needs to do, is deliver what the people want.

If you can get whatever application is available on a jailbroken iPhone (including "adult" applications through some age of consent purchasing T's & C's OR whatever.....)

from Apple's official App store, then the jailbroken iPhone, and it's application store, will never survive.

Simply give the people what they wish to purchase.
post #4 of 43
Apple has been using a vertical business model for the Mac for 30 years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CU10 View Post

I wonder how long Apple can keep up its integrated way of offering services.
post #5 of 43
I've essentially come to the conclusion that Apple's first troubleshooting step (whether at Genius bar or on phone support) should just be, wipe the phone... full reset, and download latest version, end of story (or doesn't work, new phone, end of story.)
The phone then works, and the user can re-load existing music, apps, etc. No need to even ask if its jailbroken.
But jailbreakers can't have it both ways. If they jailbreak, then they can go to 'dev team' to fix their mucked up phones.
But Apple shouldn't have to spend one second of their time supporting jailbroken phones.
post #6 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by CU10 View Post

I wonder how long Apple can keep up its integrated way of offering services.

For a very, VERY long time. Because integrated hardware/software/services is a strategy with BIG advantages--for the consumer, not just for Apple.

And disadvantages too. Look how long it took iFart to get onto the App Store! Some apps never did make it there, and maybe never will.

If third parties can step in to fill a need, I say go for it!

I suspect the need is small--do we really need fart apps to be approved more promptly?--but a small fraction of a big number (the iPhone market) may still be worth serving.

My only interest in jailbreaking is to hack the UI. Which is fun--I did it to my clickwheel iPod--but not important enough to make me do it. For me it's just NOT worth the hassle: when Apple comes out with their OWN UI improvements (and some are surely needed) or whatever the 3.0 OS brings, I'll want that update--without having to worry about whether my jailbreak will cause me problems or not. And certainly without having to wonder whether my jailbreak-only apps will stop running.

Because they could: Apple can block jailbreakers intentionally (which I disagree with strongly) but even if they don't, they surely won't waste time and money making sure their updates are jailbreak-friendly.

So I wish jailbreak stores well, but I'll be cheering strictly from the sidelines.

(I will NOT of course, cheer for all those who jailbreak to promote piracy, which I know is one big reason. And the only reason I MIGHT be persuaded to accept Apple taking action against jailbreaking.)
post #7 of 43
*yawn*

Yet another indication that Apple is scared s***less about competition. They can't take any hit to their bottom line, so they attack anything that tries to compete.

Sounds like Apple took a page right out of Microsoft's playbook.
Fragmentation is not just something we have to acknowledge and accept. Fragmentation is something that we deal with every day, and we must accept it as a fact of the iPhone platform experience.

Ste...
Reply
Fragmentation is not just something we have to acknowledge and accept. Fragmentation is something that we deal with every day, and we must accept it as a fact of the iPhone platform experience.

Ste...
Reply
post #8 of 43
As long as they keep updating it with meaningful feature additions, they'll stymy jailbreaking's impact on sales.

I know when 2.0 came out, I was enticed enough by the free iTunes Remote app to lock my phone back up. Since then I've jailbroken to check in and little of the process is seamless.

Having to jailbreak in the first place to get to this store is not viable!

Why does anyone think this is serious a threat to any aspect of the business? Enthusiasts will go for it and always try for it. Cydia offers tools to make lifehacker projects and the sort a dream, but the 2nd Gen iPod touch can't even be jailbroken by the average user yet after being on sale for months!

And then in a handful more months, let's say we see 2.5 or some other significant firmware upgrade, everything is either broken again or you are forced to stay away from the new software underpinnings. This is, of course, a lesser problem if you ignore the likely different hardware of the next iPhone as a source of headaches.

Getting jailbreaking software from a rapidshare or a torrent is not a serious effort.
post #9 of 43
It seems like a pretty stupid way to try and make money.

Remove all copy protection from your applications and sell to people who obviously don't mind cracking their firmware.

Wouldn't those same people get the same software "free"* from somewhere else?

*free apart from spyware, adware, Trojan and other threats which are often included with "free" software sites.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #10 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by g3pro View Post

*yawn*

Yet another indication that Apple is scared s***less about competition. They can't take any hit to their bottom line, so they attack anything that tries to compete.

Sounds like Apple took a page right out of Microsoft's playbook.

You mis-spelled "Apple objects to criminals stealing their intellectual property without payment."
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #11 of 43
Not sure the article states the reason the Mac failed. I thought it was because Apple didn't follow MS's model of licensing out their OS/X and working with 3rd parties as much as they should have.

MS's model allowed as cheap as possible hardware and easily upgradeable machines. That was much bigger back then when speed increases really did something for the everyday user.

I also don't think App store is in trouble. It's open enough from what I can see. I am less sure Apple should only have 1 iphone hardware model.
post #12 of 43
Hacking a proprietary system and profiting from other people work is not competition. Developing your own system and competing against a proprietary system is competition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by g3pro View Post

*yawn*

Yet another indication that Apple is scared s***less about competition. They can't take any hit to their bottom line, so they attack anything that tries to compete.

Sounds like Apple took a page right out of Microsoft's playbook.
post #13 of 43
I certainly don't see the collapse of the Mac form as being attributable too giving users and developers too much access to their own hardware. After all, IBM and Microsoft never seriously restricted much of anything and they won a vastly larger market with an inferior platform.

Here's the basic fact that makes this all clear: Apple sold far more computers than IBM.

Apple sold more units because they had a better platform. But Apple was the *only* player selling the platform and it's lonely at the top. And much like a lonely mountain climber, a lonely platform developer is unlikely to succeed.

Apple had better software and (actually) better marketing than anyone. But if your marketing is twice as good as anyone else's, but EVERYONE else is selling a PC, you're still the odd man out.

Unfortunately, Apple is repeating its, frankly stupid, mistake. The iPhone is undoubtedly better than the G1, but Google's Android platform (while not open) at least lets user install what they want, from whom they want. And if you're willing to fork over $400 up front, you can get a G1 directly from Google complete with root password and the ability to reflash the thing; with permission from Google.

Just like they did in the 80s, Apple will sell more units than HTC, Nokia, Samsung, or any of the other hardware vendors. But those hardware vendors will have little choice but to use Google software, so in aggregate, Google will win and the iPhone will die.

Steve Jobs is a better designer than a strategist. As long as Apple presumes to be able to control anything, they will always do well with innovative products and lose their advantage when their product is poorly copied by a company that understands the software world as it really exists.
post #14 of 43
Welcome to AI.

Part of the problem in your assertion, is the fact that no one company completely dominates mobile phones. In this case its not Apple vs PC. This is Apple, Nokia, RIM, Windows Mobile, Palm, and Android.

The serious flaw in your assertion is that everyone will be forced to use Google Android, there is absolutely no evidence this will happen. Android has been unable to capture the same amount of marketshare as the iPhone over the same amount of time. There is absolutely no reason for Nokia, RIM, or Palm to use Android.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bouncing View Post

Unfortunately, Apple is repeating its, frankly stupid, mistake. The iPhone is undoubtedly better than the G1, but Google's Android platform (while not open) at least lets user install what they want, from whom they want. And if you're willing to fork over $400 up front, you can get a G1 directly from Google complete with root password and the ability to reflash the thing; with permission from Google.

Just like they did in the 80s, Apple will sell more units than HTC, Nokia, Samsung, or any of the other hardware vendors. But those hardware vendors will have little choice but to use Google software, so in aggregate, Google will win and the iPhone will die.
post #15 of 43
reasons the Jailbreak store won't work:
1. Developers overall: With the current AppStore there is no software piracy. Why would developers support piracy?
2. Apple will keep chasing jailbreakers with software updates enough to make any jailbreaker's life miserable
3. The current model works exceptionally well
4. The reason Apple fell behind in the Mac platform is that they sat on their bums from 1991-1996 and made no significant improvement to their OS (palm sounds familiar here) while their competition was offering much cheaper hardware with almost equivalent software
5. The hardware price for the iphone is similar to all competitors. This was not true with mid 90s macs
6. The iPhone's success will resemble the iPod's success (better than competition at equivalent prices) more than the mac's.
post #16 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by g3pro View Post

*yawn*

Yet another indication that Apple is scared s***less about competition. They can't take any hit to their bottom line, so they attack anything that tries to compete.

Sounds like Apple took a page right out of Microsoft's playbook.

Well when your "competition" is the widespread piracy and content devaluation that destroyed music sales and is ravaging the market for video and up-ending publishing and killing newspapers, then yes, it is scary.
post #17 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by bouncing View Post

I certainly don't see the collapse of the Mac form as being attributable too giving users and developers too much access to their own hardware. After all, IBM and Microsoft never seriously restricted much of anything and they won a vastly larger market with an inferior platform.

IBM immediately lost control of the PC hardware market because it failed to exert proprietary control over it in time. Within five years, it couldn't even market PS/2 against the clone invasion.

Microsoft certainly benefitted from seeing its inferior platform spread, but Apple makes zero money on the iPhone OS and very little on marketing third party software. Exchanging its very valuable hardware market for nothing but "freedom" it no longer controlled would not be a genius strategy.

Quote:
Here's the basic fact that makes this all clear: Apple sold far more computers than IBM.

Apple sold more units because they had a better platform. But Apple was the *only* player selling the platform and it's lonely at the top. And much like a lonely mountain climber, a lonely platform developer is unlikely to succeed.

Apple had better software and (actually) better marketing than anyone. But if your marketing is twice as good as anyone else's, but EVERYONE else is selling a PC, you're still the odd man out.

Unfortunately, Apple is repeating its, frankly stupid, mistake.

This is the same "favorite mistake" Apple made with the iPod. Your arguments could also have been used four years ago to suggest that Apple should give away its multibillion dollar iPod market in order to "get rich" reselling DRM music to other hardware makers for mere millions (which a lot of people at the time were suggesting).

Since much of the value of the iPhone comes from its secured, vibrant software platform for third parties, ceding this to third parties to run would also be "risky" to a superlative extent. Allowing third parties to set up a piracy-friendly substitute store (despite the assurances that this piracy won't be the main reason for doing it and that nobody will actually pirate anything rather than paying for it) will clearly damage Apple's ability to sell software and to sell hardware that could not longer reliably run that software.

"Freedom" clearly isn't doing enough to make Android hotly competitive, which is why are markets are based on money rather than principled ideology about sharing and altruism. For people who aren't primarily interested in making money, the option to create software and offer it for free in Apple's App Store to a wide audience simply solves most of their needs.
post #18 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by obs1970 View Post

reasons the Jailbreak store won't work:
1. Developers overall: With the current AppStore there is no software piracy. Why would developers support piracy?

I know what you mean, but the reason devs would support JB stores, in spite of piracy, is if their app can't be sold any other way. Better some sales than no sales! Apple rejected iFart, for instance (although they changed their mind). Not my cup of tea, but if I was the developer, I'd be happy to have a way to sell it if Apple's (vague and puzzlin) guidelines barred it.

But Apple is improving their guidelines over time, so the number of good apps being rejected may shrink. We've got farting AND GPS now! (Not, as far as I know, combined into one app, though.)
post #19 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

... possibly even result in widespread iPhone software piracy that could topple the success of the App Store entirely, just as casual file trading gutted the music business...

Please. The music business was not gutted. Some argue that it has actually increased sales. Not to mention forced the biz to reconsider how it offers its product; otherwise the iTunes Music Store may never have been.
post #20 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by bouncing View Post

Steve Jobs is a better designer than a strategist. As long as Apple presumes to be able to control anything, they will always do well with innovative products and lose their advantage when their product is poorly copied by a company that understands the software world as it really exists.

Totally disagree. Jobs is probably one of the greatest strategist of all time.

He developed the strategy first. Then he had the product designed and created, and then put the necessary action in place to make it successful.

Probably the best example of his strategic prowess is the "The Untold Story: How the iPhone Blew Up the Wireless Industry." http://www.wired.com/gadgets/wireles...urrentPage=all

http://www.pagelines.com/articles/st...keting-method/

http://www.augie.edu/dept/bsad/facul...ocs/iPhone.pdf

The fact that Apple sits with billions of dollars in the bank, continues to progress while others perch on the brink of bankruptcy and just keeps on dazzling its competition, defies the idea that anybody here could critique them so maliciously, let alone teach anybody anything.
post #21 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by bouncing View Post

I certainly don't see the collapse of the Mac form as being attributable too giving users and developers too much access to their own hardware. After all, IBM and Microsoft never seriously restricted much of anything and they won a vastly larger market with an inferior platform.

Here's the basic fact that makes this all clear: Apple sold far more computers than IBM.

Apple sold more units because they had a better platform. But Apple was the *only* player selling the platform and it's lonely at the top. And much like a lonely mountain climber, a lonely platform developer is unlikely to succeed.

Apple had better software and (actually) better marketing than anyone. But if your marketing is twice as good as anyone else's, but EVERYONE else is selling a PC, you're still the odd man out.

Unfortunately, Apple is repeating its, frankly stupid, mistake. The iPhone is undoubtedly better than the G1, but Google's Android platform (while not open) at least lets user install what they want, from whom they want. And if you're willing to fork over $400 up front, you can get a G1 directly from Google complete with root password and the ability to reflash the thing; with permission from Google.

Just like they did in the 80s, Apple will sell more units than HTC, Nokia, Samsung, or any of the other hardware vendors. But those hardware vendors will have little choice but to use Google software, so in aggregate, Google will win and the iPhone will die.

Steve Jobs is a better designer than a strategist. As long as Apple presumes to be able to control anything, they will always do well with innovative products and lose their advantage when their product is poorly copied by a company that understands the software world as it really exists.

Yeah, see the problem with that idea is that people said the same thing about iTunes and that turned into complete crap, as people were willing to buy an iPod for a superior experience. People are willing to do the same with the iPhone for exactly that reason. And whether Android winds up being the dominant platform or not, it certainly won't ever be as profitable as the iPhone is (which, by the way, companies are been ripping off to no avail for two years now).

Apple has never cared about market share, only about profits and for that reason, it doesn't matter who the market leader is as long as the profits are being raked in. Apple's hardware has only 10% market share, but steady profits. Microsoft, on the other hand, has 87% of the market and just laid off several thousands of people (and then tried to screw them out of cash) because its model is too dependent on market trends. That's exactly the reason Microsoft will always be a follower, not a leader.

One way or another, without Apple, Microsoft wouldn't exist. Hell, just look at MS advertising, would they really have come up with "I'm a PC" without Apple having done it better first?
post #22 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

Probably the best example of his strategic prowess is the "The Untold Story: How the iPhone Blew Up the Wireless Industry."

You are also ignoring how the article was only looking at the short term results from the original iphone launch.

Revenue sharing failed. iPhone copycat outsold the original iPhone. European carriers saddled with excess inventory a month after that wired.com article. Handset subsidy killed the full priced iphone business model.

Nothing's changed with the wireless industry.
post #23 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

Totally disagree. Jobs is probably one of the greatest strategist of all time.

He developed the strategy first. Then he had the product designed and created, and then put the necessary action in place to make it successful.

Probably the best example of his strategic prowess is the "The Untold Story: How the iPhone Blew Up the Wireless Industry."

Or the strategy for first Apple PC or the strategy for the first commercial GUI PC or buying Pixar for $10M from Lucas or the iPod or the... There really are a great many things to choose from. I understand the "he was in the right place at the right time" and the "he was mostly lucky" comments, but when you are in the right place at the right time over and over again, especially when you aren't first into a market, like with the iPod and iPhone. But when it happens over and over again you can't help but think that it's strategy to put yourself in the right place at the right time and to see the how you can exploit it.
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 #24 of 43
Although "syphon" (as used in the article's headline) is an acceptable variant, isn't "siphon" a more commonly used spelling?... one that would make the headline more acceptable to be jumped on by wire services?

Also, the article refers to "jailbreaking" without explaining what it means. If you're going to insist on using the phrase "Cupertino-based" for every dang article, you may as well try to offer an explainer for the viewing public when you toss out these geek terms.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #25 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halvri View Post

Apple's hardware has only 10% market share, but steady profits. Microsoft, on the other hand, has 87% of the market and just laid off several thousands of people (and then tried to screw them out of cash) because its model is too dependent on market trends.

See this often. Comparing Apple's HW to MS' OS marketshare. If we compare Apple to other HW vendors, we have Apple at 10%, with Dell at 20% and HP at 25%. That isn't bad at all, consider that Apple's average sale is not even close to the $400 notebooks that Dell and HP sell in droves.


Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

You are also ignoring how the article was only looking at the short term results from the original iphone launch.
Revenue sharing failed.

You are right that it didn't work in many countries, but AT&T wanted to continue it. Apple had to extend their contract with them in order to change it. It was an experiment and I doubt Apple thought it was going to work out completely, but it was good to have done it. With the carriers having so much control over what how phones are designed it's not hard to see how Apple was able to come into an established market quickly becoming the de facto and creating sweeping changes just from existing.
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 #26 of 43
I am curious how this plays well with the GPL. Since apt (the package manager that Cydia uses) is published under the GPL, you can use it so long as you don't charge money for the software that you create with it. If you do charge money, you need to negotiate your terms with the Free Software Foundation.

Take a look at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

I haven't see this brought up yet, but it seems like quite a sticking point.
post #27 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimDreamworx View Post

Please. The music business was not gutted. Some argue that it has actually increased sales. Not to mention forced the biz to reconsider how it offers its product; otherwise the iTunes Music Store may never have been.

If you compare how much music was being sold in the late 90s to today, you'd have to agree that the conventional market for music being sold to consumers was gutted. While iTunes has become quite popular, it is still a fraction of the size of the CD market, and does not make up for the massive losses in sales, not to mention the lack of any growth, in music sales to consumers over the past decade.

It is pointless to talk about the market without actually addressing the numbers involved. It's a matter of fact, not opinion.

Whenever you're forced to fall back on "some say," you are probably leaving fact land to support your premise with conjecture. "Some say" the earth is flat, the moon is made of cheese, and that humans don't have any effect on climate change so full speed ahead with "clean coal."
post #28 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

You are also ignoring how the article was only looking at the short term results from the original iphone launch.

Revenue sharing failed. iPhone copycat outsold the original iPhone. European carriers saddled with excess inventory a month after that wired.com article. Handset subsidy killed the full priced iphone business model.

Nothing's changed with the wireless industry.

No. It is you that has short term thinking.

Apple's success is even more profound when one considers that it achieves it on its own. Invariably, it fights the status quo. Not just one adversary but a whole host of them at the same time. Including ignorant or jealous bloggers. How else can one one explain such unfounded, unsupported rhetoric?
post #29 of 43
Microsoft's model of cranking out something to sell to the maximum number is ONE good business model.

But Apple's is a good model too--and we users (not just Apple) have seen the benefits of it.

Does anyone really think both models shouldn't exist? I'm happy to have the Apple option out there to choose from.
post #30 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by CU10 View Post

Market forces are driving this I believe.

I wonder how long Apple can keep up its integrated way of offering services.

Which market are you talking about?

The number of people that want to jailbreak their phone & want Apple to let them worry about whether the apps they run are spyware or malware is a tiny minority.

The vast majority of us want a phone that is extremely stable & easy to use. We want a store where we never have to worry about what we are downloading & how safe it is. And for those of us who are parents we don't want to end up in a parent teacher conference about how our child was caught distributing a porn app for the iPhone.

Seriously people, you've gone so far off the path of logic it's a wonder how you get by in this world.
post #31 of 43
I personally don't want to live in a nanny state, and I don't want my computer or OS to be a nanny over what I do. I'm happy to have a bit more risk in my life in order not to have cameras and checkpoints on every corner, and I'm happy to put up with a bit more risk of malware in order to have freedom in my iPhone -- which by now, is much more than a phone to me. My Mac gets by perfectly nicely without Apple controlling every bit of software I can run, and I see no reason why my iPhone can't do the same; and if it does get infected with something, so be it, it's on my head. I don't care if many people would prefer a nanny state or a nanny OS -- it's not the right thing to do in either case.

Also, arguments like the following are pretty weak: "However, Apple isn't censoring speech by limiting what software it chooses to sell in its store or on its platform, any more than it is censoring speech by not stocking porn mags and political tracts in its retail outlets." It's not censoring speech, it's censoring behavior: it's saying that, in the world of my phone, I can't do anything without Apple's approval. And for that matter, why do you think it would be wrong for Apple to censor what web sites I go to on the iPhone? The logic seems identical: I can always go to the web site on some other browser; if it were declared policy by Apple, and I agreed to it when buying the phone, what right to I have to complain; many web sites are unsuitable for children or might contain web apps that compete with Apple or contain malware; etc. Yet I presume you would object to Apple blocking all websites unless explicitly approved by Apple. Why is that?

But who needs complex analogies to speech or governments? Such top-down control is not right for my personal computer, and it's not right for my mini-computer.
post #32 of 43
Porn on your iPhone is only a google search away, your iPhone can be issuing grunts, groans and sighs in next to no time.

Where are users who want such things having their rights violated?
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #33 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milford View Post

I personally don't want to live in a nanny state, and I don't want my computer or OS to be a nanny over what I do. I'm happy to have a bit more risk in my life in order not to have cameras and checkpoints on every corner, and I'm happy to put up with a bit more risk of malware in order to have freedom in my iPhone -- which by now, is much more than a phone to me. My Mac gets by perfectly nicely without Apple controlling every bit of software I can run, and I see no reason why my iPhone can't do the same; and if it does get infected with something, so be it, it's on my head. I don't care if many people would prefer a nanny state or a nanny OS -- it's not the right thing to do in either case.

Also, arguments like the following are pretty weak: "However, Apple isn't censoring speech by limiting what software it chooses to sell in its store or on its platform, any more than it is censoring speech by not stocking porn mags and political tracts in its retail outlets." It's not censoring speech, it's censoring behavior: it's saying that, in the world of my phone, I can't do anything without Apple's approval. And for that matter, why do you think it would be wrong for Apple to censor what web sites I go to on the iPhone? The logic seems identical: I can always go to the web site on some other browser; if it were declared policy by Apple, and I agreed to it when buying the phone, what right to I have to complain; many web sites are unsuitable for children or might contain web apps that compete with Apple or contain malware; etc. Yet I presume you would object to Apple blocking all websites unless explicitly approved by Apple. Why is that?

But who needs complex analogies to speech or governments? Such top-down control is not right for my personal computer, and it's not right for my mini-computer.

A very typical selfish view of the situation, it is all I I I, no thought for anyone else.

Apple have to think about everyone and make sure that they are all safe and free from issues without them having to take the risks you don't care about. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Apple have every right to decide what THEY sell through THEIR store as it is THEIR reputation that would be at risk. I can see the headlines now - APPLE SELLS PORN, APPLE SELL VIRUS LADEN SOFTWARE, APPLE SELL RACIST SOFTWARE. Apple is not protecting us, they are protecting themselves.

If you don't like the model then fuck off and sell your iPhone, no one forced you to buy it.
post #34 of 43
Booo, jailbreakers are lamos! I support the movement of jail breaking to try something out with the iPhone such as software development or so that you can use it in other country just in case but I totally against "legalizing" jailbreaking. Its just the same as hackintosh except for different name. These people should end up in jail instead.
Apple is a hardware company, dont believe me? Read this Article!. For those who understand my message, help me spread this info to those who dont get it.
Reply
Apple is a hardware company, dont believe me? Read this Article!. For those who understand my message, help me spread this info to those who dont get it.
Reply
post #35 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by hezekiahb View Post

Seriously people, you've gone so far off the path of logic it's a wonder how you get by in this world.

This world you really think these people reside in This world?

Remember these people can't differentiate between plausible speculation & reality nor tokenism & normality. They were never in This world or, more accurately, they left it some time ago.

McD
Android proves (as Windows & VHS did before it) that if you want to control people, give us choices and the belief we're capable of making them. We're all 'living' the American dream.
Reply
Android proves (as Windows & VHS did before it) that if you want to control people, give us choices and the belief we're capable of making them. We're all 'living' the American dream.
Reply
post #36 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by bouncing View Post

I certainly don't see the collapse of the Mac form as being attributable too giving users and developers too much access to their own hardware. After all, IBM and Microsoft never seriously restricted much of anything and they won a vastly larger market with an inferior platform.

Here's the basic fact that makes this all clear: Apple sold far more computers than IBM.

Apple sold more units because they had a better platform. But Apple was the *only* player selling the platform and it's lonely at the top. And much like a lonely mountain climber, a lonely platform developer is unlikely to succeed.

Apple had better software and (actually) better marketing than anyone. But if your marketing is twice as good as anyone else's, but EVERYONE else is selling a PC, you're still the odd man out.

Unfortunately, Apple is repeating its, frankly stupid, mistake. The iPhone is undoubtedly better than the G1, but Google's Android platform (while not open) at least lets user install what they want, from whom they want. And if you're willing to fork over $400 up front, you can get a G1 directly from Google complete with root password and the ability to reflash the thing; with permission from Google.

Just like they did in the 80s, Apple will sell more units than HTC, Nokia, Samsung, or any of the other hardware vendors. But those hardware vendors will have little choice but to use Google software, so in aggregate, Google will win and the iPhone will die.

Steve Jobs is a better designer than a strategist. As long as Apple presumes to be able to control anything, they will always do well with innovative products and lose their advantage when their product is poorly copied by a company that understands the software world as it really exists.

It's true to say that Apple's market strategy flies in the face of the incumbent social doctrine and your arguments extend to more than just computing products - NEC/Toshiba won the the VCR wars using the choice gambit. Why then didn't PlaysForSure unseat iPod?

Market incumbency must be a factor. Apple was thwarted by a serious management error in the '80s maybe the world was more gullible then. Android will prove, just as PlaysForSure did, that openness doesn't seem as appealing now as it did back then (the advantages are hypothetical and the disadvantages all too real) and will only reinforce Apple's position.

As for SJ being a poor strategist, maybe he is. He was always asking us a question that many are only now beginning to understand. Society is changing, people realise their choices are orchestrated and therefore aren't theirs so better to have them well orchestrated than not. Maybe he just had his timing wrong.

McD
Android proves (as Windows & VHS did before it) that if you want to control people, give us choices and the belief we're capable of making them. We're all 'living' the American dream.
Reply
Android proves (as Windows & VHS did before it) that if you want to control people, give us choices and the belief we're capable of making them. We're all 'living' the American dream.
Reply
post #37 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by maybesew View Post

I am curious how this plays well with the GPL. Since apt (the package manager that Cydia uses) is published under the GPL, you can use it so long as you don't charge money for the software that you create with it. If you do charge money, you need to negotiate your terms with the Free Software Foundation.

Take a look at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

I haven't see this brought up yet, but it seems like quite a sticking point.

You might want to try reading what you post, as in the second paragraph, "When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price."

You can absolutely charge money for "free" software under GPL. "Free" under the Free Software Foundation's license means that the source code is freely available, which was an issue under Apple's iPhone developer agreements for a while (but I believe has been resolved).
post #38 of 43
Speaking as a mobile developer, the current SDK restrictions make it hard to develop anything past games and shovelware. The company I work for has had an application rejected from the app store and we seriously considered releasing it via other means. Would we sell it via Cydia? Possibly but I'd imagine that the target audience would be pretty small. As it stands, we'd rather develop for other platforms.

Charlie Wolf's comments are laughable. Cydia is neither the home of offensive apps nor the home of malware and trojans.
post #39 of 43
I have no problem with people hacking their iPhones and loading them up with under-the-counter apps. Just accept the negative consequences of your actions, namely, Apple fighting back.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #40 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by bouncing View Post


Unfortunately, Apple is repeating its, frankly stupid, mistake. The iPhone is undoubtedly better than the G1, but Google's Android platform (while not open) at least lets user install what they want, from whom they want. And if you're willing to fork over $400 up front, you can get a G1 directly from Google complete with root password and the ability to reflash the thing; with permission from Google.

Just like they did in the 80s, Apple will sell more units than HTC, Nokia, Samsung, or any of the other hardware vendors. But those hardware vendors will have little choice but to use Google software, so in aggregate, Google will win and the iPhone will die.

Steve Jobs is a better designer than a strategist. As long as Apple presumes to be able to control anything, they will always do well with innovative products and lose their advantage when their product is poorly copied by a company that understands the software world as it really exists.

And I don't see how you can analogize Apple's strategy with the iPhone to their early failures with the Mac. Are you related to Roger McNamee? In the short term, Apple is crushing everyone else in the wireless market. Will they be able to do that over the long term? Who knows? As long as they continue to develop a better alternative to other mobile O/S's out there, they can remain a dominant player.

Quote:
Originally Posted by g3pro View Post

*yawn*

Yet another indication that Apple is scared s***less about competition. They can't take any hit to their bottom line, so they attack anything that tries to compete.

Sounds like Apple took a page right out of Microsoft's playbook.

To couch it in your terms, whatever. Do you even understand what you're talking about? Competition is one thing; violating the DMCA by reverse engineering the OS is another. Love them or hate them for it, they have delivered a game-changing mobile handset, and are doing what they feel is necessary to protect their IP. The hackers & script kiddies who jailbreak and steal apps likely wouldn't buy those apps in the first place. I have buddies making comfortable six-figure salaries who NEVER buy anything they can't steal, because fundamentally they're still sociopathic adolescents. If app developers lose widespread confidence that they can sell their apps in the App Store, that will damage Apple's position in the wireless market.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CU10 View Post

Market forces are driving this I believe.

I wonder how long Apple can keep up its integrated way of offering services.

As long as they keep delivering a product people want.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Jailbreak stores plot to plunder iPhone app revenue