but ripping them off to the tune of $30 for a $1 piece of rubber.
If people don't see any value in a $30 piece of rubber that can be had from a different seller in almost identical form for $1, why would they buy it?
People buy the $30 bumper from Apple because they value convenience (do not need to go to a different store) or because they value low risk (a third-party bumper will have a slightly higher risk of not having perfectly working buttons etc.) or because they value the status signal (I am rich enough to not bother shopping around for cheap bumpers).
Ripping people off is either abusing a monopoly position (I don't think Apple has a monopoly on bumpers) or charge some people more than others for the same product. Apple is doing neither.
Admittedly, Apple has a monopoly for bumpers sold in Apple stores but since it very easy to get a bumper somewhere else, this is only a very weak monopoly.
They said those words, even if the isolated implication wasn't their actual intention in the context of their own sentence. The follow on wasn't overly explicit in its meaning either.
Semantics and clarity of meaning are important in good journalism, if only to prevent manipulative quotations.
Yes but, advertising is a very fungible expenditure, not all appears as advertising in the accounts...
I absolutely understand your point and agree. Case in point, Google's entire business is advertising and even without the Apple logo on things the iconic designs are in and of theme selves advertisements. Unfortunately, there is no way to directly account for those things with any relative accuracy, so the Business Insider chart and article is the only data I have.
And yet I own an iMac and an iPad currently, and have spent 000's on apple hardware over the years. It doesnt make Apple Godlike you know. They are not above criticism.
I agree, nobody is above criticism ... however, constantly buying from a company that you constantly criticize just doesn't pass "the smell test." .... but that's the great thing about the internet ... anybody can claim anything ... and often do. We can only judge people by their actions ... not by what they claim to own.
They said those words, even if the isolated implication wasn't their actual intention in the context of their own sentence. The follow on wasn't overly explicit in its meaning either.
Semantics and clarity of meaning are important in good journalism, if only to prevent manipulative quotations.
I don't know how anybody, who looked at the accompanying charts, could ever arrive at the same conclusion as you ... I'm guessing that you went straight to the comments without reading the main story?
The other thing you have to take into consideration is that Tom Tom uses GPS which is far more accurate than just A-GPS.
A-GPS is GPS plus additional data brought in by a side band (for phones, cellular data) for faster initialization, among other things. At least on iPhone, it it is better than GPS, not worse than. You might be thinking of WiFi triangulation or cell-tower triangulation, which is probably not nearly as good as GPS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by noirdesir
If people don't see any value in a $30 piece of rubber that can be had from a different seller in almost identical form for $1, why would they buy it?
People buy the $30 bumper from Apple because they value convenience (do not need to go to a different store) or because they value low risk (a third-party bumper will have a slightly higher risk of not having perfectly working buttons etc.) or because they value the status signal (I am rich enough to not bother shopping around for cheap bumpers).
Ripping people off is either abusing a monopoly position (I don't think Apple has a monopoly on bumpers) or charge some people more than others for the same product. Apple is doing neither.
Admittedly, Apple has a monopoly for bumpers sold in Apple stores but since it very easy to get a bumper somewhere else, this is only a very weak monopoly.
It does look nice, and I don't think anyone else inserts the metal buttons into their cases. I think Apple still sells other brand cases in their own store. The same would be true of AT&T and Best Buy stores. Most cases seem to run about $25 and up anyway at a retail store, it's hardly out of the ordinary unless you're comparing it to someone selling very inexpensive alternative brand cases from overseas on eBay. Then you need to plan on waiting 10-14 days for delivery, so there's a trade-off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fuwafuwa
Actually Android Store is 100% free. Buy an app, backup, and cancel before 24 hours. VoilÃ*, free app.
If that's true, I think that's a great way to discourage developers from supporting the platform. Probably not the best thing to do if you really want the Android platform thrive.
Google's kill switch deletes apps while Apple's only disables them. Although what practical difference that makes I don't know.
So yes, Google was the first to delete apps. Apple then would be the first to remotely disable apps, I guess.
The difference is, remote kill will delete the apps not only in the market store, but also in the user's devices. While disable means the app is removed from app store, but if you downloaded before, you still can use it.
Android apps are mediocre compared to iOS ones. Try finding a good RSS app for Android. Not going to happen! iOS has half a dozen great ones: NewsRack, Pulse News, Reeder, Byline, etc. The quality gap is probably why many Android apps are free.
The difference is, remote kill will delete the apps not only in the market store, but also in the user's devices. While disable means the app is removed from app store, but if you downloaded before, you still can use it.
Are you saying Google has two options or that Apple's "remote kill switch" can't actually disable an app remotely (ie: on an iOS device)? This article states Apple's remote kill switch can make an app on an iDevice unusable.
The difference is, remote kill will delete the apps not only in the market store, but also in the user's devices. While disable means the app is removed from app store, but if you downloaded before, you still can use it.
Actually, Apple can remotely disable an app on the device. Where did you get the idea that it wasn't possible - a link would be handy if you have one...
Are you saying Google has two options or that Apple's "remote kill switch" can't actually disable an app remotely (ie: on an iOS device)? This article states Apple's remote kill switch can make an app on an iDevice unusable.
I'm well aware of the number of times each has been used, but that doesn't answer the question I asked regarding your previous comment.
I think language got in the way there. He might not have caught the subtlety in my response that Apple wasn't able to delete the apps remotely, but was still able to disable them remotely. I think he believed I was somehow talking about removing them from sale.
If I were an Android Developer, I would say, FUCK GOOGLE. Or actually they'd already said that implicitly. I just happened to read a complain from a developer in official Android forum, saying that 30% of his app sales were canceled, and several of them are canceled in seconds! 30% is enough to be said as common practice.
Also google only allow to sell apps only in 9 countries. Whether this is to promote free software or just incapability to handle the payment, in the developers' point of view that sucks to the bone. I'm happy that I develop iPhone apps.
I completely agree that Google and their app sales method is not perfect, and 30 percent is an unacceptable amount of returns, the simple solution is to use the kill switch technology that Google has, targeted to the account of the person who made the return, you return an app, you get a delete signal and lose the app.
It does suck for devs and needs to be fixed, but Apple doesn't have a return system for cruddy apps, and lets face facts, for every one good app there are 10 shit apps. and a reasonable return system is a great way to help the cream rise to the top, assuming that returns impact your app store rankings in an inverse way as sales do.
I think language got in the way there. He might not have caught the subtlety in my response that Apple wasn't able to delete the apps remotely, but was still able to disable them remotely. I think he believed I was somehow talking about removing them from sale.
But it's hard to tell...
We should agree first what are the definition of delete, disable and remote kill in this context
I completely agree that Google and their app sales method is not perfect, and 30 percent is an unacceptable amount of returns, the simple solution is to use the kill switch technology that Google has, targeted to the account of the person who made the return, you return an app, you get a delete signal and lose the app.
It does suck for devs and needs to be fixed, but Apple doesn't have a return system for cruddy apps, and lets face facts, for every one good app there are 10 shit apps. and a reasonable return system is a great way to help the cream rise to the top, assuming that returns impact your app store rankings in an inverse way as sales do.
The main problem with Android Apps, signing or DRM is not mandatory. So it is easy to copy an application to storage card, and copy to other device. It is not uncommon to find Android apps "bundle" at MegaUpload or RapidShare. That's why GameLoft left Android Market.
I also hope Apple tighten the approval process and screen out cheap useless apps.
Comments
but ripping them off to the tune of $30 for a $1 piece of rubber.
If people don't see any value in a $30 piece of rubber that can be had from a different seller in almost identical form for $1, why would they buy it?
People buy the $30 bumper from Apple because they value convenience (do not need to go to a different store) or because they value low risk (a third-party bumper will have a slightly higher risk of not having perfectly working buttons etc.) or because they value the status signal (I am rich enough to not bother shopping around for cheap bumpers).
Ripping people off is either abusing a monopoly position (I don't think Apple has a monopoly on bumpers) or charge some people more than others for the same product. Apple is doing neither.
Admittedly, Apple has a monopoly for bumpers sold in Apple stores but since it very easy to get a bumper somewhere else, this is only a very weak monopoly.
They never said that.
They said those words, even if the isolated implication wasn't their actual intention in the context of their own sentence. The follow on wasn't overly explicit in its meaning either.
Semantics and clarity of meaning are important in good journalism, if only to prevent manipulative quotations.
Wasn't Google the first to employ the "remote kill switch" to delete malicious apps, that thing that got everyone up in arms over the iOS App Store?
Google's kill switch deletes apps while Apple's only disables them. Although what practical difference that makes I don't know.
So yes, Google was the first to delete apps. Apple then would be the first to remotely disable apps, I guess.
Yes but, advertising is a very fungible expenditure, not all appears as advertising in the accounts...
I absolutely understand your point and agree. Case in point, Google's entire business is advertising and even without the Apple logo on things the iconic designs are in and of theme selves advertisements. Unfortunately, there is no way to directly account for those things with any relative accuracy, so the Business Insider chart and article is the only data I have.
And yet I own an iMac and an iPad currently, and have spent 000's on apple hardware over the years. It doesnt make Apple Godlike you know. They are not above criticism.
I agree, nobody is above criticism ... however, constantly buying from a company that you constantly criticize just doesn't pass "the smell test." .... but that's the great thing about the internet ... anybody can claim anything ... and often do. We can only judge people by their actions ... not by what they claim to own.
They said those words, even if the isolated implication wasn't their actual intention in the context of their own sentence. The follow on wasn't overly explicit in its meaning either.
Semantics and clarity of meaning are important in good journalism, if only to prevent manipulative quotations.
I don't know how anybody, who looked at the accompanying charts, could ever arrive at the same conclusion as you ... I'm guessing that you went straight to the comments without reading the main story?
The other thing you have to take into consideration is that Tom Tom uses GPS which is far more accurate than just A-GPS.
A-GPS is GPS plus additional data brought in by a side band (for phones, cellular data) for faster initialization, among other things. At least on iPhone, it it is better than GPS, not worse than. You might be thinking of WiFi triangulation or cell-tower triangulation, which is probably not nearly as good as GPS.
If people don't see any value in a $30 piece of rubber that can be had from a different seller in almost identical form for $1, why would they buy it?
People buy the $30 bumper from Apple because they value convenience (do not need to go to a different store) or because they value low risk (a third-party bumper will have a slightly higher risk of not having perfectly working buttons etc.) or because they value the status signal (I am rich enough to not bother shopping around for cheap bumpers).
Ripping people off is either abusing a monopoly position (I don't think Apple has a monopoly on bumpers) or charge some people more than others for the same product. Apple is doing neither.
Admittedly, Apple has a monopoly for bumpers sold in Apple stores but since it very easy to get a bumper somewhere else, this is only a very weak monopoly.
It does look nice, and I don't think anyone else inserts the metal buttons into their cases. I think Apple still sells other brand cases in their own store. The same would be true of AT&T and Best Buy stores. Most cases seem to run about $25 and up anyway at a retail store, it's hardly out of the ordinary unless you're comparing it to someone selling very inexpensive alternative brand cases from overseas on eBay. Then you need to plan on waiting 10-14 days for delivery, so there's a trade-off.
Actually Android Store is 100% free. Buy an app, backup, and cancel before 24 hours. VoilÃ*, free app.
If that's true, I think that's a great way to discourage developers from supporting the platform. Probably not the best thing to do if you really want the Android platform thrive.
Google's kill switch deletes apps while Apple's only disables them. Although what practical difference that makes I don't know.
So yes, Google was the first to delete apps. Apple then would be the first to remotely disable apps, I guess.
The difference is, remote kill will delete the apps not only in the market store, but also in the user's devices. While disable means the app is removed from app store, but if you downloaded before, you still can use it.
The difference is, remote kill will delete the apps not only in the market store, but also in the user's devices. While disable means the app is removed from app store, but if you downloaded before, you still can use it.
Are you saying Google has two options or that Apple's "remote kill switch" can't actually disable an app remotely (ie: on an iOS device)? This article states Apple's remote kill switch can make an app on an iDevice unusable.
The difference is, remote kill will delete the apps not only in the market store, but also in the user's devices. While disable means the app is removed from app store, but if you downloaded before, you still can use it.
Actually, Apple can remotely disable an app on the device. Where did you get the idea that it wasn't possible - a link would be handy if you have one...
Are you saying Google has two options or that Apple's "remote kill switch" can't actually disable an app remotely (ie: on an iOS device)? This article states Apple's remote kill switch can make an app on an iDevice unusable.
Both Google and Apple have remote kill switch capability. Google used twice, Apple none.
(The Reg reports that the poll comprised 2000+ smartphone developers)
No surprises though.
Chopper.
Both Google and Apple have remote kill switch capability. Google used twice, Apple none.
I'm well aware of the number of times each has been used, but that doesn't answer the question I asked regarding your previous comment.
I'm well aware of the number of times each has been used, but that doesn't answer the question I asked regarding your previous comment.
I think language got in the way there. He might not have caught the subtlety in my response that Apple wasn't able to delete the apps remotely, but was still able to disable them remotely. I think he believed I was somehow talking about removing them from sale.
But it's hard to tell...
If I were an Android Developer, I would say, FUCK GOOGLE. Or actually they'd already said that implicitly. I just happened to read a complain from a developer in official Android forum, saying that 30% of his app sales were canceled, and several of them are canceled in seconds! 30% is enough to be said as common practice.
Also google only allow to sell apps only in 9 countries. Whether this is to promote free software or just incapability to handle the payment, in the developers' point of view that sucks to the bone. I'm happy that I develop iPhone apps.
I completely agree that Google and their app sales method is not perfect, and 30 percent is an unacceptable amount of returns, the simple solution is to use the kill switch technology that Google has, targeted to the account of the person who made the return, you return an app, you get a delete signal and lose the app.
It does suck for devs and needs to be fixed, but Apple doesn't have a return system for cruddy apps, and lets face facts, for every one good app there are 10 shit apps. and a reasonable return system is a great way to help the cream rise to the top, assuming that returns impact your app store rankings in an inverse way as sales do.
I think language got in the way there. He might not have caught the subtlety in my response that Apple wasn't able to delete the apps remotely, but was still able to disable them remotely. I think he believed I was somehow talking about removing them from sale.
But it's hard to tell...
We should agree first what are the definition of delete, disable and remote kill in this context
I completely agree that Google and their app sales method is not perfect, and 30 percent is an unacceptable amount of returns, the simple solution is to use the kill switch technology that Google has, targeted to the account of the person who made the return, you return an app, you get a delete signal and lose the app.
It does suck for devs and needs to be fixed, but Apple doesn't have a return system for cruddy apps, and lets face facts, for every one good app there are 10 shit apps. and a reasonable return system is a great way to help the cream rise to the top, assuming that returns impact your app store rankings in an inverse way as sales do.
The main problem with Android Apps, signing or DRM is not mandatory. So it is easy to copy an application to storage card, and copy to other device. It is not uncommon to find Android apps "bundle" at MegaUpload or RapidShare. That's why GameLoft left Android Market.
I also hope Apple tighten the approval process and screen out cheap useless apps.
We should agree first what are the definition of delete, disable and remote kill in this context
Apparently so...