No, I'm suggesting that whatever differences in distro costs exist or don't exist, it shouldn't factor in to MS's decision. If there is a difference just pass it on.
I don't know much about retail, but I don't think that's the way it works. If it did, you'd see the same products priced differently in different outlets. Instead, what we usually see is a fixed retail price.
No, I'm suggesting that whatever differences in distro costs exist or don't exist, it shouldn't factor in to MS's decision. If there is a difference just pass it on.
Doesn't work without raising your price everywhere as the Mac App Store rules state that all apps must have a price equal to or lower than anywhere else distributed. This means a developer who before charged $20 for their app must now sell it for $28.57 to make the same amount in profit. Most users don't look kindly to that kind of a price hike.
I don't know much about retail, but I don't think that's the way it works. If it did, you'd see the same products priced differently in different outlets. Instead, what we usually see is a fixed retail price.
It wouldn't be the same product in the Mac App Store though. It would have an all the additional advantages the App Store provides.
Specifically the "no serial numbers" rule, and the "no software suites" rule are what stops Microsoft and Adobe from being in the Mac App store.
How strict is the MAS compared to the iAS? I know you can?t have installers, but what about the underlying code in MS and Adobe?s apps? Would they drop all Carbon before they could submit their apps?
From what I?ve seen Apple is being just as strict with their own apps. They currently list 10 apps, 2 of which (Xcode and FaceTime) will be accessible for free via Lion. They have a lot more than 10 apps including 3 of the 5 iLife ?11 apps which I presume have expunged all the Caron and PPC code.
Doesn't work without raising your price everywhere as the Mac App Store rules state that all apps must have a price equal to or lower than anywhere else distributed. This means a developer who before charged $20 for their app must now sell it for $28.57 to make the same amount in profit. Most users don't look kindly to that kind of a price hike.
That's not true. The "equal to or lower price" rule only applies to in-app purchases on the iOS App Store, it doesn't apply to the Mac App Store at all.
That's not true. The "equal to or lower price" rule only applies to in-app purchases on the iOS App Store, it doesn't apply to the Mac App Store at all.
So there is no price parity requirement for selling apps in and out of the MAS?
It would make more sense to target Snow Leopard and then do whatever is necessary after the fact to "make it work" on Leopard.
Targeting an old OS is like building mediocrity into your product on purpose.
If that were true, then no one would develop for or ensure compatibility with Windows XP or Vista. The reality is developers need to reach the greatest percentage of users taking into account cost and benefit when making a product work with legacy operating systems.
For example, it makes sense to ensure compatibility with Leopard but if Tiger has substantial bugs and would require a significant amount of effort to make an application work, it is no longer a viable option because the cost outweighs the benefit (you're only reaching an additional 6% of Mac users).
Personally, I'd love to see more things compatible with Tiger simply because a lot of schools use Tiger, but I'm also not the one eating the development costs.
It's just another way to buy and install software. More convenient than buying the CD, but the future upgrades are not identified and delivered to you like on the Mac App Store. I think it'll be a popular store, but not as robust as on the Mac App Store.
ding ding ding
Buy from Amazon and it is unlikely the app will be recognized as installed by the app store. Which means you will receive no updates. Additionally, I'd be curious if an app bought from Amazon would show up in iTunes? Will the app transfer to new computers you buy?
I'd stick with the Mac App Store for Mac specific software. Amazon is great for things like Turbotax, books, plastic junk, etc...
That's not true. The "equal to or lower price" rule only applies to in-app purchases on the iOS App Store, it doesn't apply to the Mac App Store at all.
My mistake. After searching pretty hard I am unable to find that rule. I must have assumed it existed.
Specifically the "no serial numbers" rule, and the "no software suites" rule are what stops microsoft and adobe from being in the mac app store.
I'm happy with the mac app store rules though. The only software that's excluded is all stuff that i can't stand for one reason or another. Mostly because it's old or poorly designed or both.
The days of the "giant integrated software suite that tries to do everything" can't end soon enough for me. I also think that places like adobe and microsoft are making a foolish move in sticking with the suite of apps approach.
It would make more sense to target Snow Leopard and then do whatever is necessary after the fact to "make it work" on Leopard.
Targeting an old OS is like building mediocrity into your product on purpose.
It would make sense to use Mac API's that is available on all Mac OS X. Bigger audience, more sales opportunity. As a consumer, I am not sure what version of Mac OS I am running. I buy software for the Mac and I just expect it to work. I don't want to have to upgrade my OS when I buy software. I am ok with this mediocrity.
Buy from Amazon and it is unlikely the app will be recognized as installed by the app store. Which means you will receive no updates. Additionally, I'd be curious if an app bought from Amazon would show up in iTunes? Will the app transfer to new computers you buy?
I'd stick with the Mac App Store for Mac specific software. Amazon is great for things like Turbotax, books, plastic junk, etc...
I have many apps that auto update without the App Store. I am kind of use to that update. TurboTax was the latest software I bought and I am use to buying that way too. Now if App Store was going to give me a big discount, I would give them a try.
It would make sense to use Mac API's that is available on all Mac OS X. Bigger audience, more sales opportunity.
That?s certainly an argument for a developer, but the counter-arguement is that you could lose customers if you are selling an app that is slower, has less features and all-around functions poorly because it?s not made with a newer SDK with better APIs.
For example, once I needed an app for capturing my screen as I used it. Video, not stills. I tried Snapz Pro X and ScreenFlow. ScreenFlow wasn?t know by anyone I knew but I was informed about Snap ProZ simply because it?s been around awhile and was loved at one time. I choose ScreenFlow for many reasons I won?t get into here. I then told friends to try it and they couldn?t believe how elegant and powerful this app was while using few resources. I seem to recall it was only for 10.5 at the time, ignoring the not so old 10.4.
No, the original comment was correct because apps developed for Leopard are generally compatible with Snow Leopard.
Snow Leopard = 68% base
Leopard = 24% + the 68% from Snow Leopard = 92%
92% > 68%
Therefore Leopard is the better target.
So now we are going to have to code down to old versions of OSX. No thanks. I'm writing code for the latest versions of OSX software and that's it. That so called developer is holding up innovation...yet people are rightfully quick to blame msft without acknowledging that some rogue developers are lazy and will not upgrade when they should costing your company more money and pain when they are finally forced to upgrade.
Who would have thought Amazon would be such a big thorn in Apple?s side? Of all their hats this seems like the least effective venture but if they can get Mac App Store titles then I think it could work. What I don?t understand is why Amazon doesn?t have a Windows app store.
I don't see it being very successful either. But even if it is, it doesn't hurt Apple. Remember, Apple is in the business of selling hardware.
Some of us do more then just surf the web and send emails.
Snow Leopard is a disaster.
Stop trolling this site. It about time the real members started taking it back from the 'investor interest only' trolls.
Some of us rely on Apple to generate REAL income through production... Unlike all the wallstreet leeches who produce nothing.
Anyone care to elaborate on why SL is "a disaster"? I run 10.6 on four machines and 10.5 on just one now, and I haven't yet found anything that 10.6 does worse.
Comments
Specifically the "no serial numbers" rule, and the "no software suites" rule are what stops Microsoft and Adobe from being in the Mac App store
Good point! And the unlimited installs on all the machines you own...
No, I'm suggesting that whatever differences in distro costs exist or don't exist, it shouldn't factor in to MS's decision. If there is a difference just pass it on.
I don't know much about retail, but I don't think that's the way it works. If it did, you'd see the same products priced differently in different outlets. Instead, what we usually see is a fixed retail price.
No, I'm suggesting that whatever differences in distro costs exist or don't exist, it shouldn't factor in to MS's decision. If there is a difference just pass it on.
Doesn't work without raising your price everywhere as the Mac App Store rules state that all apps must have a price equal to or lower than anywhere else distributed. This means a developer who before charged $20 for their app must now sell it for $28.57 to make the same amount in profit. Most users don't look kindly to that kind of a price hike.
I don't know much about retail, but I don't think that's the way it works. If it did, you'd see the same products priced differently in different outlets. Instead, what we usually see is a fixed retail price.
It wouldn't be the same product in the Mac App Store though. It would have an all the additional advantages the App Store provides.
Specifically the "no serial numbers" rule, and the "no software suites" rule are what stops Microsoft and Adobe from being in the Mac App store.
How strict is the MAS compared to the iAS? I know you can?t have installers, but what about the underlying code in MS and Adobe?s apps? Would they drop all Carbon before they could submit their apps?
From what I?ve seen Apple is being just as strict with their own apps. They currently list 10 apps, 2 of which (Xcode and FaceTime) will be accessible for free via Lion. They have a lot more than 10 apps including 3 of the 5 iLife ?11 apps which I presume have expunged all the Caron and PPC code.
Doesn't work without raising your price everywhere as the Mac App Store rules state that all apps must have a price equal to or lower than anywhere else distributed. This means a developer who before charged $20 for their app must now sell it for $28.57 to make the same amount in profit. Most users don't look kindly to that kind of a price hike.
That's not true. The "equal to or lower price" rule only applies to in-app purchases on the iOS App Store, it doesn't apply to the Mac App Store at all.
That's not true. The "equal to or lower price" rule only applies to in-app purchases on the iOS App Store, it doesn't apply to the Mac App Store at all.
So there is no price parity requirement for selling apps in and out of the MAS?
It would make more sense to target Snow Leopard and then do whatever is necessary after the fact to "make it work" on Leopard.
Targeting an old OS is like building mediocrity into your product on purpose.
If that were true, then no one would develop for or ensure compatibility with Windows XP or Vista. The reality is developers need to reach the greatest percentage of users taking into account cost and benefit when making a product work with legacy operating systems.
For example, it makes sense to ensure compatibility with Leopard but if Tiger has substantial bugs and would require a significant amount of effort to make an application work, it is no longer a viable option because the cost outweighs the benefit (you're only reaching an additional 6% of Mac users).
Personally, I'd love to see more things compatible with Tiger simply because a lot of schools use Tiger, but I'm also not the one eating the development costs.
It's just another way to buy and install software. More convenient than buying the CD, but the future upgrades are not identified and delivered to you like on the Mac App Store. I think it'll be a popular store, but not as robust as on the Mac App Store.
ding ding ding
Buy from Amazon and it is unlikely the app will be recognized as installed by the app store. Which means you will receive no updates. Additionally, I'd be curious if an app bought from Amazon would show up in iTunes? Will the app transfer to new computers you buy?
I'd stick with the Mac App Store for Mac specific software. Amazon is great for things like Turbotax, books, plastic junk, etc...
This means a developer who before charged $20 for their app must now sell it for $28.57 to make the same amount in profit.
You can't make that statement without knowing the wholesale price.
That's not true. The "equal to or lower price" rule only applies to in-app purchases on the iOS App Store, it doesn't apply to the Mac App Store at all.
My mistake. After searching pretty hard I am unable to find that rule. I must have assumed it existed.
yeah, i was just trying to be brief.
Specifically the "no serial numbers" rule, and the "no software suites" rule are what stops microsoft and adobe from being in the mac app store.
I'm happy with the mac app store rules though. The only software that's excluded is all stuff that i can't stand for one reason or another. Mostly because it's old or poorly designed or both.
The days of the "giant integrated software suite that tries to do everything" can't end soon enough for me. I also think that places like adobe and microsoft are making a foolish move in sticking with the suite of apps approach.
+++ qft
It would make more sense to target Snow Leopard and then do whatever is necessary after the fact to "make it work" on Leopard.
Targeting an old OS is like building mediocrity into your product on purpose.
It would make sense to use Mac API's that is available on all Mac OS X. Bigger audience, more sales opportunity. As a consumer, I am not sure what version of Mac OS I am running. I buy software for the Mac and I just expect it to work. I don't want to have to upgrade my OS when I buy software. I am ok with this mediocrity.
ding ding ding
Buy from Amazon and it is unlikely the app will be recognized as installed by the app store. Which means you will receive no updates. Additionally, I'd be curious if an app bought from Amazon would show up in iTunes? Will the app transfer to new computers you buy?
I'd stick with the Mac App Store for Mac specific software. Amazon is great for things like Turbotax, books, plastic junk, etc...
I have many apps that auto update without the App Store. I am kind of use to that update. TurboTax was the latest software I bought and I am use to buying that way too. Now if App Store was going to give me a big discount, I would give them a try.
It would make sense to use Mac API's that is available on all Mac OS X. Bigger audience, more sales opportunity.
That?s certainly an argument for a developer, but the counter-arguement is that you could lose customers if you are selling an app that is slower, has less features and all-around functions poorly because it?s not made with a newer SDK with better APIs.
For example, once I needed an app for capturing my screen as I used it. Video, not stills. I tried Snapz Pro X and ScreenFlow. ScreenFlow wasn?t know by anyone I knew but I was informed about Snap ProZ simply because it?s been around awhile and was loved at one time. I choose ScreenFlow for many reasons I won?t get into here. I then told friends to try it and they couldn?t believe how elegant and powerful this app was while using few resources. I seem to recall it was only for 10.5 at the time, ignoring the not so old 10.4.
No, the original comment was correct because apps developed for Leopard are generally compatible with Snow Leopard.
Snow Leopard = 68% base
Leopard = 24% + the 68% from Snow Leopard = 92%
92% > 68%
Therefore Leopard is the better target.
So now we are going to have to code down to old versions of OSX. No thanks. I'm writing code for the latest versions of OSX software and that's it. That so called developer is holding up innovation...yet people are rightfully quick to blame msft without acknowledging that some rogue developers are lazy and will not upgrade when they should costing your company more money and pain when they are finally forced to upgrade.
This entire post sounds like raving nonsense to me. Are you sure you are a developer? I'm thinking you just play one in your dream life.
Some of us do more then just surf the web and send emails.
Snow Leopard is a disaster.
Stop trolling this site. It about time the real members started taking it back from the 'investor interest only' trolls.
Some of us rely on Apple to generate REAL income through production... Unlike all the wallstreet leeches who produce nothing.
..... What I don?t understand is why Amazon doesn?t have a Windows app store.
Because installing a Windows app often needs a call to tech support in order to complete. The Mac apps typically do not.
Who would have thought Amazon would be such a big thorn in Apple?s side? Of all their hats this seems like the least effective venture but if they can get Mac App Store titles then I think it could work. What I don?t understand is why Amazon doesn?t have a Windows app store.
I don't see it being very successful either. But even if it is, it doesn't hurt Apple. Remember, Apple is in the business of selling hardware.
Some of us do more then just surf the web and send emails.
Snow Leopard is a disaster.
Stop trolling this site. It about time the real members started taking it back from the 'investor interest only' trolls.
Some of us rely on Apple to generate REAL income through production... Unlike all the wallstreet leeches who produce nothing.
Anyone care to elaborate on why SL is "a disaster"? I run 10.6 on four machines and 10.5 on just one now, and I haven't yet found anything that 10.6 does worse.