I just thought about an issue: I've got MY iPod/iPhone, I've developed MY application with regards of all Apple's rules and restrictions and... I simply can't run MY OWN application on MY OWN iPod/iPhone.
Sure you can. How do you think developers test their apps before submitting them. You just offer it to the masses to use without getting Apple?s approval.
Don't forget it also gives Apple a competitive advantage with their own apps as they can essentially utilize functionality that everyone else cant. Bit like what Microsoft used to do with Windows. Not that they really need to as they just ban every app that could be a competitor...
Wow. What makes you immediately "go there?"
Not everyone has nefarious motives you know. There's no evidence that Apple has ever done this or ever intends to.
Sure you can. How do you think developers test their apps before submitting them. You just offer it to the masses to use without getting Apple’s approval.
Yes, I can. Just paying $99 every year. $99 per year for running MY OWN application on MY OWN iPod/iPhone.
It is one thing for apple to want to control what is sold on their app store platform, but I believe it is wrong for them to dictate that one can't sell their apps directly. I am personally surprised that no one brought a court case for locking the device to such an extant that developers have to give 30% to apple for their hard work. This might have been fine initially when there wasn't 100.000 app and some cashed so nicely that they couldn't complain, but seriously.
First one couldn't install OSX on any other product that Apple expensive hardware.
Then one couldn't transfer his purchased music to any other non itunes device, without a hack.
Now one can't sell their iApp without going through Apple store.
What is next is the question?
Developers can't sell their software without giving money to Apple.
There is no doubt that Apple is following the trend of the neo con/fascist, where one can't do anything freely without becoming a criminal.
So much for being politically neutral. I think they are a bit hypocrites on this one.
I don't know if censorship is the right word to describe what Apple is doing.
Censorship has the connotation of government action and related to public (government controlled things.)
This is a misconception. Censorship is just censorship, there is no implication of government anything, although governments do censor more than most parties.
Also, while I think teckstud's call for totally open distribution is terribly naive, I think he's right that there is no reason for Apple to censor "adult" apps or play social gatekeeper in any way given that the store has built in parental controls.
It's basically dishonest and two-faced of Apple to say on the one hand that they are going to mark al the apps that are "for adults" and then at the same time censor apps for content like boobies or swastikas. That's totally fascist really and it can't really be said that there is any logical argument to support it.
I just thought about an issue: I've got MY iPod/iPhone, I've developed MY application with regards of all Apple's rules and restrictions and... I simply can't run MY OWN application on MY OWN iPod/iPhone.
Not everyone has nefarious motives you know. There's no evidence that Apple has ever done this or ever intends to.
Err background apps, and I don't accept the crap that its to stop the phone slowing down. People mange multiple programs on a PC perfectly fine and realize that when it starts to slow you need to close some stuff. Also wouldn't be particularly hard to give users a display so they can see which apps are hogging the memory and processor.
Mail can receive emails, but Skype cant recieve messages.
iPOD can play when you exit it, yet Last FM has to stop if you ever want to do anything else, like use your phone while listening to music.
So correct me if Im wrong but isn't that a frickin huge piece of functionality that Apple apps can use but everyone else's cant?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core
Why not?
See his other post. To copy your own app, onto your own iPhone, from your own Mac, using your own cable, with everything plugged into your own power supply, located in your own home, using your own time and potentially not even using Xcode to write the app but someone else's somehow means you have to pay Apple $99 a year for the privilege to do so.
Yes, I can. Just paying $99 every year. $99 per year for running MY OWN application on MY OWN iPod/iPhone.
Then jailbreak your phone and you?re good to go. If you can create an app with Xcode then you can easily figure out how create a jailbroken app. You?re not breaking any laws as far as I can tell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lune
It is one thing for apple to want to control what is sold on their app store platform, but I believe it is wrong for them to dictate that one can't sell their apps directly. I am personally surprised that no one brought a court case for locking the device to such an extant that developers have to give 30% to apple for their hard work.
I?m guessing the iPhone is your first smartphone. It?s been discussed ad nauseam, but the 30% isn?t jut Apple skimming off the top and it?s a lot lower than most other mobile app stores before it charged for a similar service. I?ll look them up later and see if they?ve altered their rates since the App Store arrived.
Quote:
This might have been fine initially when there wasn't 100.000 app and some cashed so nicely that they couldn't complain, but seriously.
How does the number products sold in a store dictate that a store should low their prices. Don?t expect them to lower this non-excessive fee until there is competing store doing better with lower rates.
Quote:
First one couldn't install OSX on any other product that Apple expensive hardware.
Then don?t buy a Mac. Apple creates their software to sell their HW. That is their business model. You are not entitled to running Mac OS X on any HW you choose nor required to purchase anything from Apple if you don?t want to. Free market FTW!
Quote:
Then one couldn't transfer his purchased music to any other non itunes device, without a hack.
iTunes runs on nearly every PC in the world so that isn?t a problem. iTunes has the first and only option to legally remove DRM from audio as dictated from RIAA. Also, iTunes Store music hasn?t DRM for awhile now. Most importantly, if you don?t like quality and/or restrictions of a store you don?t have to buy from them. Nothing stops you from buy Amazon music, CDs, etc.
Quote:
Now one can't sell their iApp without going through Apple store.
Nope, but that is their choice. You don?t have to support their business model if you don?t like it.
Quote:
What is next is the question?
Developers can't sell their software without giving money to Apple.
There is no doubt that Apple is following the trend of the neo con/fascist, where one can't do anything freely without becoming a criminal.
So much for being politically neutral. I think they are a bit hypocrites on this one.
I guess I should have read this part first. What a fraking nut! Against paragraphs and a free market. I suggest supporting the Motorola Droid. Long live the People?s App Phone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
It's basically dishonest and two-faced of Apple to say on the one hand that they are going to mark al the apps that are "for adults" and then at the same time censor apps for content like boobies or swastikas. That's totally fascist really and it can't really be said that there is any logical argument to support it.
Their process seems very disjointed. They have apps that access risqué images of women but then can other apps. The apps don?t actually have the files on them which i guess shifts any liability but it?s a silly stance. Put up proper parental controls and just keep anything harmful or illegal out of the store. Nothing more; nothing less.
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84
Err background apps, and I don't accept the crap that its to stop the phone slowing down. People mange multiple programs on a PC perfectly fine and realize that when it starts to slow you need to close some stuff.
So when I press the Home Button on the iPhone the app should just run in the background. How many apps could that potentially be in a very short time? Do I really need WeatherBug running constantly in the background. Is the foreground app so unimportant that the background app should be allowed to suck as much CPU cycles and RAM that it chooses to? How about the fact the first two iPhones barely had enough RAM to run the basics? That the iPod app running while trying to use Safari with tabs would make the page I was just on reload because there wasn?t enough RAM to hold the page? How about the slowdowns that occurred from
Quote:
Also wouldn't be particularly hard to give users a display so they can see which apps are hogging the memory and processor.
There?s an app for that.
Quote:
Mail can receive emails, but Skype cant recieve messages.
iPOD can play when you exit it, yet Last FM has to stop if you ever want to do anything else, like use your phone while listening to music.
So correct me if Im wrong but isn't that a frickin huge piece of functionality that Apple apps can use but everyone else's cant?
It?s Apple?s apps. They have created them and tested them. Their developers know exactly how much resources they use while running in the background. Other developers, not so much. Instead of complaining I?ve found solutions. I?ve been running Backgrounder since it launched. Not all apps are created equal. Start Google Earth and SkyVoyager, then push it to the background while trying to use your iPod, get mail, and use Safari. Not a good experience.
Apple is creating a consumer device for the average person. They have taken a market segment that was primarily for geeky virgins and hardcore business users and made it popular for the average person.
I?d wager that Apple will likely include background app support in v4.0. That it will be available for the 3GS and beyond, but not for the original and 3G for the reasons stated above. The best method I can think of is to make it work like the Push Notifications in Settings. Meaning, they will create Background App API and leave it up to the developer to choose which apps are capable of running in the background and what services will work in the background. It?s simply stupid to have most apps run in the background just like it?s stupid for most apps to have Push Notifications, but there are certainly some that greatly benefit from it.
Why aren't these apps open like the internet itself is? Who's deciding this censorship and I'm not talking the data hogging ones? If you clog your phone up because it's a guzzler then it's your responsibility to delete the app but to censor them for other reasons is just so wrong.
Stop asking Why. Go write an application for the iPhone, learn ObjC, Cocoa and follow the dev site listings for answers you'd expect under NDA.
I just thought about an issue: I've got MY iPod/iPhone, I've developed MY application with regards of all Apple's rules and restrictions and... I simply can't run MY OWN application on MY OWN iPod/iPhone.
Really? You signed up to register as a ADC dev, signed an NDA and developed an iPhone/iPod Touch application and you're asking how come you can't run your own App directly in the wild without going through the Appstore?
Stop fantasizing and throwing out baseless hypothetical scenarios as if the NDA and Developer license boundaries don't exist, on an operating system you only have a license to use, under terms you agreed to when you purchased the damn product.
Psystar is done. Get over it.
Go run Linux on the system, develop your own API Frameworks, run-time, etc., that will run under Linux and install on the system [assuming you have Linux capably running on the iPhone/iPod Touch] to your heart's content.
If Apple's tool checked the type of the object the method is being called on, then surely problem solved?
Integrating the private API checking tools into XCode would make sense as a logical next step.
Flag up the issue as the code is written.
Very true, I agree there. A no brainer really...
On the iPhone, Warn the developer that you will be rejected if you use Private API, But on OS X, just Warn about it, and say "use at your own risk, your app may break in a later OS X release or update"
I?m guessing the iPhone is your first smartphone. It?s been discussed ad nauseam, but the 30% isn?t jut Apple skimming off the top and it?s a lot lower than most other mobile app stores before it charged for a similar service. I?ll look them up later and see if they?ve altered their rates since the App Store arrived.
Incidentally, I do not own a smart phone (i think). In fact I have asked my service provider to disable browsing/email capabilities. If people can't wait for me to be the front of a computer to reply to them, then I don't really want to deal with them. What is all this rush rush business now days. Not everybody has the ability take decision on the spot. This just a recipe for disaster. As for commission 1h before the job deadline, I am against it too. It just shows that people are disorganized. My peace is more important than their money. If I wanted to be in the rat race, i would be. But no thanks
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
How does the number products sold in a store dictate that a store should low their prices. Don?t expect them to lower this non-excessive fee until there is competing store doing better with lower rates.
Your are off my topic. It isn't about prices, it is about exclusive distribution. A model copied from the entertainment industry. What I was trying to say, was that it is easy to have your product visible in a small outlet, but this become more difficult if you have 100 competitors on the same shelf. So the initial surge in sale might be something of the past. As for a competitor shop selling iApp, I though this was against the laws... established by Apple.
It is like saying: you can buy my paint/canvases/brushes, and can sell your paintings only through me. If I don't like your painting, you can't sell it at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
iTunes runs on nearly every PC in the world so that isn?t a problem. iTunes has the first and only option to legally remove DRM from audio as dictated from RIAA. Also, iTunes Store music hasn?t DRM for awhile now. Most importantly, if you don?t like quality and/or restrictions of a store you don?t have to buy from them. Nothing stops you from buy Amazon music, CDs, etc.
I don't buy music download. I don't think it is/was fair that one who had already purchased on iTunes, then had to pay once more just to get the music they had already purchased, DMR free.
I do not purchase music online because, unlike software if you have a major crash, you have to purchase it again. I know you are going to tell me to back up. But if I add the cost of a hard drive to the cost of the music/movies, then this is all adds up. I stick to CDs until their system change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Nope, but that is their choice. You don?t have to support their business model if you don?t like it.
You can burn songs from iTunes onto a CD if you want.
My CD's joined the boxes of video tapes, cassette tapes and vinyl stored in my garage.
The world changes and nothing is going to stop that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lune
I don't buy music download. I don't think it is/was fair that one who had already purchased on iTunes, then had to pay once more just to get the music they had already purchased, DMR free.
I do not purchase music online because, unlike software if you have a major crash, you have to purchase it again. I know you are going to tell me to back up. But if I add the cost of a hard drive to the cost of the music/movies, then this is all adds up. I stick to CDs until their system change.
I don't know if censorship is the right word to describe what Apple is doing.
Censorship has the connotation of government action and related to public (government controlled things.)
It's kind of amazing the amount of complaints about everything Apple does with the iPhone and the dev situation. People want instant response. They feel waiting 9 days, or 10 days, or 14 days is unacceptable. Wow. What world do they live in? Ever try resolving a discrepancy with your insurance company and your Dr.? And in this case if Apple does a good job, and your App is posted, and is popular you stand to make a nice living from your efforts.
Next people want to install anything they write and sell it anyway they can. Up to 3 years ago no cell phone in the world could do anything even close to what you can on the iPhone. Ugly little Java games, symbian hurt.
Then the crying about apps being rejected. Even though from what I follow most of the time a minor correction or just resubmitting gets an inoffensive app (one that doesn't obviously break the dev agreement) OK'd. And yes, anything that uses people will have subjective decisiosn that we don't all agree with.
From all the complaining I imagine there won't be any developers left in a few weeks...oh wait, more come in every day.
It's kind of amazing the amount of complaints about everything Apple does with the iPhone and the dev situation. People want instant response. They feel waiting 9 days, or 10 days, or 14 days is unacceptable. Wow. What world do they live in? Ever try resolving a discrepancy with your insurance company and your Dr.? And in this case if Apple does a good job, and your App is posted, and is popular you stand to make a nice living from your efforts.
Next people want to install anything they write and sell it anyway they can. Up to 3 years ago no cell phone in the world could do anything even close to what you can on the iPhone. Ugly little Java games, symbian hurt.
Then the crying about apps being rejected. Even though from what I follow most of the time a minor correction or just resubmitting gets an inoffensive app (one that doesn't obviously break the dev agreement) OK'd. And yes, anything that uses people will have subjective decisiosn that we don't all agree with.
From all the complaining I imagine there won't be any developers left in a few weeks...oh wait, more come in every day.
Try to imagine you spent substantial $$$ to make your application and now you have to wait extra 14 days, or 3 months or whatever before you hear if you are in the wild to start getting some money back before you break even, or your investment goes straight through the toilet. Apple's screening is inconsistent and there are quite a few really strange cases.
If there is alternate way how to sell applications, I bet not that many developers would complain.
Really? You signed up to register as a ADC dev, signed an NDA and developed an iPhone/iPod Touch application and you're asking how come you can't run your own App directly in the wild without going through the Appstore?
Stop fantasizing and throwing out baseless hypothetical scenarios as if the NDA and Developer license boundaries don't exist, on an operating system you only have a license to use, under terms you agreed to when you purchased the damn product.
Psystar is done. Get over it.
Go run Linux on the system, develop your own API Frameworks, run-time, etc., that will run under Linux and install on the system [assuming you have Linux capably running on the iPhone/iPod Touch] to your heart's content.
Obviously you don't know what you are talking about. It is one thing to get the ADC account, get the iPhone SDK and all the doc and develop the application. Then if you actually want to try it on your own device, you are out of luck and have to fork out $99 a year for this to happen. This is what the original post complained about. Add my vote, it is strange business model by Apple.
Try to imagine you spent substantial $$$ to make your application and now you have to wait extra 14 days, or 3 months or whatever before you hear if you are in the wild to start getting some money back before you break even, or your investment goes straight through the toilet. Apple's screening is inconsistent and there are quite a few really strange cases.
If there is alternate way how to sell applications, I bet not that many developers would complain.
There are other ways to sell your apps. They even have their own store that sits on your iPhone/Touch as an app. If the problem was bigger more people would flock to this method. I’d have to say you not knowing it exists when it existed well before Apple’s App Store makes me think this just isn’t the issue people make it out to be.
PS: Personally, my biggest issue with the App Store is the lack of a trial period. Sure, developers can offer a “lite” version of the app but that doesn’t really let me test how good the full version is and often the differences tend to be between ad supported v. non-ad supporting. Also, I’ve seen the paid version do wonky things to make it seem more clever but in effect only ended up making it unstable or harder to use
I’d like to Apple adapt the iTS movie rentals exploding DRM to apps for trial periods added so that developers can choose to let people test their full apps. I think this could help with piracy a bit, too. I know I used to my jailbroken iPhone to test out the TomTom app before buying it. I wasn’t going to spend $100 on something I didn’t test. I didn’t like it so I deleted it and would have deleted it and then paid for it if I had liked it. Not all people or all apps will be immune, but convenience will likely make many who are willing to test out an app under $10 decide to just pay for it if they like it. I paid $10 for Beejive, an IM app of all things. It’s worth every penny.
Comments
I just thought about an issue: I've got MY iPod/iPhone, I've developed MY application with regards of all Apple's rules and restrictions and... I simply can't run MY OWN application on MY OWN iPod/iPhone.
Sure you can. How do you think developers test their apps before submitting them. You just offer it to the masses to use without getting Apple?s approval.
Apple has added a new automated layer to its approval process for App Store software, but according to one developer, it's not perfect ...
Wow. Stop the presses. A developer thinks there is a problem with Apple's app store?
I don't think the developers will ever be happy until Steve Jobs personally kisses their toes before each submission.
Don't forget it also gives Apple a competitive advantage with their own apps as they can essentially utilize functionality that everyone else cant. Bit like what Microsoft used to do with Windows. Not that they really need to as they just ban every app that could be a competitor...
Wow. What makes you immediately "go there?"
Not everyone has nefarious motives you know. There's no evidence that Apple has ever done this or ever intends to.
RogueSheep used the name of a private API method for its own method name, which caused the rejection
If Apple's tool checked the type of the object the method is being called on, then surely problem solved?
Integrating the private API checking tools into XCode would make sense as a logical next step.
Flag up the issue as the code is written.
Sure you can. How do you think developers test their apps before submitting them. You just offer it to the masses to use without getting Apple’s approval.
Yes, I can. Just paying $99 every year. $99 per year for running MY OWN application on MY OWN iPod/iPhone.
First one couldn't install OSX on any other product that Apple expensive hardware.
Then one couldn't transfer his purchased music to any other non itunes device, without a hack.
Now one can't sell their iApp without going through Apple store.
What is next is the question?
Developers can't sell their software without giving money to Apple.
There is no doubt that Apple is following the trend of the neo con/fascist, where one can't do anything freely without becoming a criminal.
So much for being politically neutral. I think they are a bit hypocrites on this one.
I don't know if censorship is the right word to describe what Apple is doing.
Censorship has the connotation of government action and related to public (government controlled things.)
This is a misconception. Censorship is just censorship, there is no implication of government anything, although governments do censor more than most parties.
Also, while I think teckstud's call for totally open distribution is terribly naive, I think he's right that there is no reason for Apple to censor "adult" apps or play social gatekeeper in any way given that the store has built in parental controls.
It's basically dishonest and two-faced of Apple to say on the one hand that they are going to mark al the apps that are "for adults" and then at the same time censor apps for content like boobies or swastikas. That's totally fascist really and it can't really be said that there is any logical argument to support it.
I just thought about an issue: I've got MY iPod/iPhone, I've developed MY application with regards of all Apple's rules and restrictions and... I simply can't run MY OWN application on MY OWN iPod/iPhone.
Why not?
Wow. What makes you immediately "go there?"
Not everyone has nefarious motives you know. There's no evidence that Apple has ever done this or ever intends to.
Err background apps, and I don't accept the crap that its to stop the phone slowing down. People mange multiple programs on a PC perfectly fine and realize that when it starts to slow you need to close some stuff. Also wouldn't be particularly hard to give users a display so they can see which apps are hogging the memory and processor.
Mail can receive emails, but Skype cant recieve messages.
iPOD can play when you exit it, yet Last FM has to stop if you ever want to do anything else, like use your phone while listening to music.
So correct me if Im wrong but isn't that a frickin huge piece of functionality that Apple apps can use but everyone else's cant?
Why not?
See his other post. To copy your own app, onto your own iPhone, from your own Mac, using your own cable, with everything plugged into your own power supply, located in your own home, using your own time and potentially not even using Xcode to write the app but someone else's somehow means you have to pay Apple $99 a year for the privilege to do so.
Yes, I can. Just paying $99 every year. $99 per year for running MY OWN application on MY OWN iPod/iPhone.
Then jailbreak your phone and you?re good to go. If you can create an app with Xcode then you can easily figure out how create a jailbroken app. You?re not breaking any laws as far as I can tell.
It is one thing for apple to want to control what is sold on their app store platform, but I believe it is wrong for them to dictate that one can't sell their apps directly. I am personally surprised that no one brought a court case for locking the device to such an extant that developers have to give 30% to apple for their hard work.
I?m guessing the iPhone is your first smartphone. It?s been discussed ad nauseam, but the 30% isn?t jut Apple skimming off the top and it?s a lot lower than most other mobile app stores before it charged for a similar service. I?ll look them up later and see if they?ve altered their rates since the App Store arrived.
This might have been fine initially when there wasn't 100.000 app and some cashed so nicely that they couldn't complain, but seriously.
How does the number products sold in a store dictate that a store should low their prices. Don?t expect them to lower this non-excessive fee until there is competing store doing better with lower rates.
First one couldn't install OSX on any other product that Apple expensive hardware.
Then don?t buy a Mac. Apple creates their software to sell their HW. That is their business model. You are not entitled to running Mac OS X on any HW you choose nor required to purchase anything from Apple if you don?t want to. Free market FTW!
Then one couldn't transfer his purchased music to any other non itunes device, without a hack.
iTunes runs on nearly every PC in the world so that isn?t a problem. iTunes has the first and only option to legally remove DRM from audio as dictated from RIAA. Also, iTunes Store music hasn?t DRM for awhile now. Most importantly, if you don?t like quality and/or restrictions of a store you don?t have to buy from them. Nothing stops you from buy Amazon music, CDs, etc.
Now one can't sell their iApp without going through Apple store.
Nope, but that is their choice. You don?t have to support their business model if you don?t like it.
What is next is the question?
Developers can't sell their software without giving money to Apple.
There is no doubt that Apple is following the trend of the neo con/fascist, where one can't do anything freely without becoming a criminal.
So much for being politically neutral. I think they are a bit hypocrites on this one.
I guess I should have read this part first. What a fraking nut! Against paragraphs and a free market. I suggest supporting the Motorola Droid. Long live the People?s App Phone.
It's basically dishonest and two-faced of Apple to say on the one hand that they are going to mark al the apps that are "for adults" and then at the same time censor apps for content like boobies or swastikas. That's totally fascist really and it can't really be said that there is any logical argument to support it.
Their process seems very disjointed. They have apps that access risqué images of women but then can other apps. The apps don?t actually have the files on them which i guess shifts any liability but it?s a silly stance. Put up proper parental controls and just keep anything harmful or illegal out of the store. Nothing more; nothing less.
Err background apps, and I don't accept the crap that its to stop the phone slowing down. People mange multiple programs on a PC perfectly fine and realize that when it starts to slow you need to close some stuff.
So when I press the Home Button on the iPhone the app should just run in the background. How many apps could that potentially be in a very short time? Do I really need WeatherBug running constantly in the background. Is the foreground app so unimportant that the background app should be allowed to suck as much CPU cycles and RAM that it chooses to? How about the fact the first two iPhones barely had enough RAM to run the basics? That the iPod app running while trying to use Safari with tabs would make the page I was just on reload because there wasn?t enough RAM to hold the page? How about the slowdowns that occurred from
Also wouldn't be particularly hard to give users a display so they can see which apps are hogging the memory and processor.
There?s an app for that.
Mail can receive emails, but Skype cant recieve messages.
iPOD can play when you exit it, yet Last FM has to stop if you ever want to do anything else, like use your phone while listening to music.
So correct me if Im wrong but isn't that a frickin huge piece of functionality that Apple apps can use but everyone else's cant?
It?s Apple?s apps. They have created them and tested them. Their developers know exactly how much resources they use while running in the background. Other developers, not so much. Instead of complaining I?ve found solutions. I?ve been running Backgrounder since it launched. Not all apps are created equal. Start Google Earth and SkyVoyager, then push it to the background while trying to use your iPod, get mail, and use Safari. Not a good experience.
Apple is creating a consumer device for the average person. They have taken a market segment that was primarily for geeky virgins and hardcore business users and made it popular for the average person.
I?d wager that Apple will likely include background app support in v4.0. That it will be available for the 3GS and beyond, but not for the original and 3G for the reasons stated above. The best method I can think of is to make it work like the Push Notifications in Settings. Meaning, they will create Background App API and leave it up to the developer to choose which apps are capable of running in the background and what services will work in the background. It?s simply stupid to have most apps run in the background just like it?s stupid for most apps to have Push Notifications, but there are certainly some that greatly benefit from it.
Why not?
There are 3 ways to run an application on iPhone/iPod:
1. Download it through App Store
2. Sign for Developer program and pay $99 per year
3. Jailbrake your iPhone/iPod - it's still hard to do with the latest Apple firmware and I'm not sure if warranty covers the phone after that.
Why aren't these apps open like the internet itself is? Who's deciding this censorship and I'm not talking the data hogging ones? If you clog your phone up because it's a guzzler then it's your responsibility to delete the app but to censor them for other reasons is just so wrong.
Stop asking Why. Go write an application for the iPhone, learn ObjC, Cocoa and follow the dev site listings for answers you'd expect under NDA.
I just thought about an issue: I've got MY iPod/iPhone, I've developed MY application with regards of all Apple's rules and restrictions and... I simply can't run MY OWN application on MY OWN iPod/iPhone.
Really? You signed up to register as a ADC dev, signed an NDA and developed an iPhone/iPod Touch application and you're asking how come you can't run your own App directly in the wild without going through the Appstore?
Stop fantasizing and throwing out baseless hypothetical scenarios as if the NDA and Developer license boundaries don't exist, on an operating system you only have a license to use, under terms you agreed to when you purchased the damn product.
Psystar is done. Get over it.
Go run Linux on the system, develop your own API Frameworks, run-time, etc., that will run under Linux and install on the system [assuming you have Linux capably running on the iPhone/iPod Touch] to your heart's content.
If Apple's tool checked the type of the object the method is being called on, then surely problem solved?
Integrating the private API checking tools into XCode would make sense as a logical next step.
Flag up the issue as the code is written.
Very true, I agree there. A no brainer really...
On the iPhone, Warn the developer that you will be rejected if you use Private API, But on OS X, just Warn about it, and say "use at your own risk, your app may break in a later OS X release or update"
I?m guessing the iPhone is your first smartphone. It?s been discussed ad nauseam, but the 30% isn?t jut Apple skimming off the top and it?s a lot lower than most other mobile app stores before it charged for a similar service. I?ll look them up later and see if they?ve altered their rates since the App Store arrived.
Incidentally, I do not own a smart phone (i think). In fact I have asked my service provider to disable browsing/email capabilities. If people can't wait for me to be the front of a computer to reply to them, then I don't really want to deal with them. What is all this rush rush business now days. Not everybody has the ability take decision on the spot. This just a recipe for disaster. As for commission 1h before the job deadline, I am against it too. It just shows that people are disorganized. My peace is more important than their money. If I wanted to be in the rat race, i would be. But no thanks
How does the number products sold in a store dictate that a store should low their prices. Don?t expect them to lower this non-excessive fee until there is competing store doing better with lower rates.
Your are off my topic. It isn't about prices, it is about exclusive distribution. A model copied from the entertainment industry. What I was trying to say, was that it is easy to have your product visible in a small outlet, but this become more difficult if you have 100 competitors on the same shelf. So the initial surge in sale might be something of the past. As for a competitor shop selling iApp, I though this was against the laws... established by Apple.
It is like saying: you can buy my paint/canvases/brushes, and can sell your paintings only through me. If I don't like your painting, you can't sell it at all.
iTunes runs on nearly every PC in the world so that isn?t a problem. iTunes has the first and only option to legally remove DRM from audio as dictated from RIAA. Also, iTunes Store music hasn?t DRM for awhile now. Most importantly, if you don?t like quality and/or restrictions of a store you don?t have to buy from them. Nothing stops you from buy Amazon music, CDs, etc.
I don't buy music download. I don't think it is/was fair that one who had already purchased on iTunes, then had to pay once more just to get the music they had already purchased, DMR free.
I do not purchase music online because, unlike software if you have a major crash, you have to purchase it again. I know you are going to tell me to back up. But if I add the cost of a hard drive to the cost of the music/movies, then this is all adds up. I stick to CDs until their system change.
Nope, but that is their choice. You don?t have to support their business model if you don?t like it.
I don't, as you might have understood by now lol.
My CD's joined the boxes of video tapes, cassette tapes and vinyl stored in my garage.
The world changes and nothing is going to stop that.
I don't buy music download. I don't think it is/was fair that one who had already purchased on iTunes, then had to pay once more just to get the music they had already purchased, DMR free.
I do not purchase music online because, unlike software if you have a major crash, you have to purchase it again. I know you are going to tell me to back up. But if I add the cost of a hard drive to the cost of the music/movies, then this is all adds up. I stick to CDs until their system change.
I don't know if censorship is the right word to describe what Apple is doing.
Censorship has the connotation of government action and related to public (government controlled things.)
It's kind of amazing the amount of complaints about everything Apple does with the iPhone and the dev situation. People want instant response. They feel waiting 9 days, or 10 days, or 14 days is unacceptable. Wow. What world do they live in? Ever try resolving a discrepancy with your insurance company and your Dr.? And in this case if Apple does a good job, and your App is posted, and is popular you stand to make a nice living from your efforts.
Next people want to install anything they write and sell it anyway they can. Up to 3 years ago no cell phone in the world could do anything even close to what you can on the iPhone. Ugly little Java games, symbian hurt.
Then the crying about apps being rejected. Even though from what I follow most of the time a minor correction or just resubmitting gets an inoffensive app (one that doesn't obviously break the dev agreement) OK'd. And yes, anything that uses people will have subjective decisiosn that we don't all agree with.
From all the complaining I imagine there won't be any developers left in a few weeks...oh wait, more come in every day.
It's kind of amazing the amount of complaints about everything Apple does with the iPhone and the dev situation. People want instant response. They feel waiting 9 days, or 10 days, or 14 days is unacceptable. Wow. What world do they live in? Ever try resolving a discrepancy with your insurance company and your Dr.? And in this case if Apple does a good job, and your App is posted, and is popular you stand to make a nice living from your efforts.
Next people want to install anything they write and sell it anyway they can. Up to 3 years ago no cell phone in the world could do anything even close to what you can on the iPhone. Ugly little Java games, symbian hurt.
Then the crying about apps being rejected. Even though from what I follow most of the time a minor correction or just resubmitting gets an inoffensive app (one that doesn't obviously break the dev agreement) OK'd. And yes, anything that uses people will have subjective decisiosn that we don't all agree with.
From all the complaining I imagine there won't be any developers left in a few weeks...oh wait, more come in every day.
Try to imagine you spent substantial $$$ to make your application and now you have to wait extra 14 days, or 3 months or whatever before you hear if you are in the wild to start getting some money back before you break even, or your investment goes straight through the toilet. Apple's screening is inconsistent and there are quite a few really strange cases.
If there is alternate way how to sell applications, I bet not that many developers would complain.
Really? You signed up to register as a ADC dev, signed an NDA and developed an iPhone/iPod Touch application and you're asking how come you can't run your own App directly in the wild without going through the Appstore?
Stop fantasizing and throwing out baseless hypothetical scenarios as if the NDA and Developer license boundaries don't exist, on an operating system you only have a license to use, under terms you agreed to when you purchased the damn product.
Psystar is done. Get over it.
Go run Linux on the system, develop your own API Frameworks, run-time, etc., that will run under Linux and install on the system [assuming you have Linux capably running on the iPhone/iPod Touch] to your heart's content.
Obviously you don't know what you are talking about. It is one thing to get the ADC account, get the iPhone SDK and all the doc and develop the application. Then if you actually want to try it on your own device, you are out of luck and have to fork out $99 a year for this to happen. This is what the original post complained about. Add my vote, it is strange business model by Apple.
Try to imagine you spent substantial $$$ to make your application and now you have to wait extra 14 days, or 3 months or whatever before you hear if you are in the wild to start getting some money back before you break even, or your investment goes straight through the toilet. Apple's screening is inconsistent and there are quite a few really strange cases.
If there is alternate way how to sell applications, I bet not that many developers would complain.
There are other ways to sell your apps. They even have their own store that sits on your iPhone/Touch as an app. If the problem was bigger more people would flock to this method. I’d have to say you not knowing it exists when it existed well before Apple’s App Store makes me think this just isn’t the issue people make it out to be.
PS: Personally, my biggest issue with the App Store is the lack of a trial period. Sure, developers can offer a “lite” version of the app but that doesn’t really let me test how good the full version is and often the differences tend to be between ad supported v. non-ad supporting. Also, I’ve seen the paid version do wonky things to make it seem more clever but in effect only ended up making it unstable or harder to use
I’d like to Apple adapt the iTS movie rentals exploding DRM to apps for trial periods added so that developers can choose to let people test their full apps. I think this could help with piracy a bit, too. I know I used to my jailbroken iPhone to test out the TomTom app before buying it. I wasn’t going to spend $100 on something I didn’t test. I didn’t like it so I deleted it and would have deleted it and then paid for it if I had liked it. Not all people or all apps will be immune, but convenience will likely make many who are willing to test out an app under $10 decide to just pay for it if they like it. I paid $10 for Beejive, an IM app of all things. It’s worth every penny.