[QUOTE=inkswamp;1900567]Wasn't arguing that. Regardless, history shows that plenty of great ideas come from hobbyist programmers and tinkerers. That $99 could be a significant barrier for that group.QUOTE]
You do realize that in order to create an idevice app that you need to own a mac. Therefore, your sunk costs are already at $1,000 (maybe a little less if you bought refurb or used). I highly doubt $99 is that big of a barrier (even for hobbyists).
the iPhone maker?s stringent approval process had delayed the launch of a reverse phone lookup app from WhitePages for two months, a far cry from the Apple-advertised ?95 percent of the apps are approved in two-weeks time?.
Am I the only one who thought that this part of the story made absolutely no sense? The guy from Whitepages would have a right to complain if Apple had claimed that 100% of apps are approved in two-weeks' time.
Obviously, that was not the case.
Also obvious: Whitepages falls within the 5% minority that has to wait more than two weeks. How is Apple in the wrong here?
Apple could accelerate this by making their iOS developer program free. I've never fully understood the $99 charge to get your app into the App Store. I understand it probably helps them offset the costs of hosting and distributing your software, but if they really wanted to knock Google developer support down a notch or two more, that would be a good way to go.
The $100/year plus enrollment greatly curtails malware. If Google wanted to stop the Malware issue in the Android Market, all they have to do is make becoming a developer slightly more difficult.
I keep seeing this 500,000 activation/day figure on ADroid. Has anyone seen verification of this #? It seems absurdly high.
Larry Page actually pegged the number at 550,000 today at the investor conference, which sounds nice but I'm still trying to wrap my head around and of course still needs confirmation from other sources.
Other than that:
Chrome install base is 160 Million and growing
Google's Revenue climbed to 9+ Billion, an increase of almost 33%. Net income at 2.51 Billion
Google plus is confirmed to have at least an install base of 10 Million users.
Google +1 button has overtaken the tweet button on websites.
And of course to shut the shareholders up, that the prime focus is profit.
Am I the only one who thought that this part of the story made absolutely no sense? The guy from Whitepages would have a right to complain if Apple had claimed that 100% of apps are approved in two-weeks' time.
Obviously, that was not the case.
Also obvious: Whitepages falls within the 5% minority that has to wait more than two weeks. How is Apple in the wrong here?
Wasn't arguing that. Regardless, history shows that plenty of great ideas come from hobbyist programmers and tinkerers. That $99 could be a significant barrier for that group.
Not what I was saying. I agree with all that. Apple's competitors are giving that away for free and that's the point I'm getting at. If Apple wants to further take the wind out of the sails of Android development, they can remove the $99 fee.
Not arguing the rationale behind the fee, just that it likely turns away a lot of hobbyists. Also, plenty of great ideas and apps have been created by hobbyists. They're not all out there making fart apps.
The cheap hobby based programmer can jailbreak for free and the dev tools are a free download.
It doesn't help Google that they are absolutely nowhere to be seen on the Lodsys issue. Apple is issuing C&Ds to Lodsys and bringing lawyers to bear. Given the speed with which the wheels of justice turn it may not be able to stop Lodsys forcing some developers to cough up, but nevertheless it induces a feeling that Apple cares about protecting developers from trolls.
Once again Google's cavalier attitude towards IP is biting their ass.
Perhaps it's in part because Lodsys hasn't filed any patent infringement lawsuits against any Android app and it's developer? I can't find one.
FWIW, the respected Florian Mueller (FOSS Patents) suggests that small developers bite the bullet and simply agree to a license. Apple has yet to throw any money in the ring to support their developers and may be listening too much to lawyer wannabe's on blog sites. Mr. Mueller writes that "It's additionally possible that some of them are such "fanbois" that they don't want to call out Apple (and Google) on their failure to really provide app developers with the guarantees that would be needed. Instead, Apple limits its damages to $50 per app developer."
Apple could accelerate this by making their iOS developer program free. I've never fully understood the $99 charge to get your app into the App Store. I understand it probably helps them offset the costs of hosting and distributing your software, but if they really wanted to knock Google developer support down a notch or two more, that would be a good way to go.
The $99 fee isn't a store listing fee per application. It's a flat annual fee for signing apps to run on an iOS device. You can write all the apps you want and you don't even have to list them on the App Store. You can just write apps for your own personal use.
If Apple reduced or waived the fee, I don't think the overall quality of apps would improve. We'd probably see even more fart apps, flashlight apps, and joke apps.
The fee also discourages iOS developers from writing malware, a growing problem with Android apps. After all, there's a credit card tied to the account. Makes it far easier for the Feds to find naughty programmers.
Not arguing the rationale behind the fee, just that it likely turns away a lot of hobbyists. Also, plenty of great ideas and apps have been created by hobbyists. They're not all out there making fart apps.
There are 400,000+ Apps that have delivered 15billion+ copies. It's clearly working fine.
No. One a year is plenty. They sell every one they can build, they don't need to introduce a new model mid-year. Not to mention it would steal the spotlight from their other products.
Too late! They're already doing this.
If reports are to be believed we're going to be seeing a 2nd iPad model this year. Apple can no longer afford to be on a yearly update cycle. It is not the same situation, at all, as even 5 or 6 years ago when Apple would do 1 year refreshes on iPods.
Some people think that Apple should lower the $99 developer fee? I say hell no, I am not interested in all sorts of riff raff and street bums developing apps for my iPad. I mean seriously, if somebody can not afford $99 as a developer, then they have zero business making any apps at all. These bums should stick to making Android apps, as that is where the lower class clientele is located, and they would be much more comfortable on that platform.
I have no time for amateur hour, when I'm buying apps for my iPad.
Of course Android should be first choice when developing an app that harvests users personal data for monetization. Apple isn't going to go for that. That's why they rejected White Pages caller-ID app since it wanted access to call history logs and contacts' info. If WP can't harvest user info, then how is it going to make money, or recover costs, if the app is free? I mean the user has to give them something that WP can aggregate and sell off.
Sure, apps that are basically trojan horses, intended solely to trick/entice users to share info for the purpose of resale and monetization will definitely face harsh treatment in approval. Since Google's business model is along the same lines, it doesn't object.
FWIW, the respected Florian Mueller (FOSS Patents) suggests that small developers bite the bullet and simply agree to a license. Apple has yet to throw any money in the ring to support their developers and may be listening too much to lawyer wannabe's on blog sites. Mr. Mueller writes that "It's additionally possible that some of them are such "fanbois" that they don't want to call out Apple (and Google) on their failure to really provide app developers with the guarantees that would be needed. Instead, Apple limits its damages to $50 per app developer."
Yes because Apple's approach with Lodsys will take longer than most developers can wait. Still you can't avoid the fact that unlike Google, Apple is actually doing something.
Of course Android should be first choice when developing an app that harvests users personal data for monetization. Apple isn't going to go for that. That's why they rejected White Pages caller-ID app since it wanted access to call history logs and contacts' info. If WP can't harvest user info, then how is it going to make money, or recover costs, if the app is free? I mean the user has to give them something that WP can aggregate and sell off.
Sure, apps that are basically trojan horses, intended solely to trick/entice users to share info for the purpose of resale and monetization will definitely face harsh treatment in approval. Since Google's business model is along the same lines, it doesn't object.
Whether or not it's officially sanctioned, there's well-known and top-rated AppStore apps that have fact transmitted private information, even unique identifiable data, without your permission according to a Wall Street Journal investigation.
Yes because Apple's approach with Lodsys will take longer than most developers can wait. Still you can't avoid the fact that unlike Google, Apple is actually doing something.
In-App billing on Android is optional...Google has no obligation, although it would be nice if they did step in.
If you put your hand on a stove knowing it was hot..you will get burned.
That's only a claim that one Android developer received a letter from Lodsys if I read it correctly. I can't find any verification of that claim, much less that a lawsuit has actually been filed. Perhaps you have some link that shows the Android app that's been targeted?
And, as per my earlier post, we see that the app in question is yet another location aware/what's hot/social thing, which seems dominate whatever activity is happening in the Android app market.
Just fine for a phone, completely pointless on a tablet. At some point the Android community is going to realize that they're simply stuck in a phone ghetto, with everything revolving around chasing after whatever the latest startup is telling you you need to be "connected." Just look at the marketing-- it's all about social apps and media.
Meanwhile, tablets look poised to become the next computing paradigm, and the iPad is looking to dominate that space as completely as MS dominated the desktop paradigm. And, at some point, that's going to have an effect on phones as well, as iPad owners are far more likely to purchase an iPhone (if they haven't already) when it comes time to re-up.
Yours is the best comment yet. Apple has slowly and strategically built its position in the marketplace and now we are beginning to see just how integrated and synergistic their multi-tiered approach is.
The last butt hurt left from MS domination now fades into distant memory as the post-pc juggernaut now can not be stopped.
The loss in developer support for new projects, at least according to Flurry, comes as activation of new Android devices continues to surge. In June, Google Vice President of Engineering Andy Rubin revealed that there are now more than a half-million Android devices activated every day, and that number is growing at 4.4 percent worldwide.
When discussing growth rates, the time period is critical. Otherwise the entire article could be wrong.
According to a NetworkWorld article on 28 June, Andy Rubin claimed Android had 500K activations per day and grew 4.4% on a week-over-week basis.
Taken together, that means Android growth actually slowed between 28 June and 14 July, a period of about 3 weeks. Because x^3 * 500 = 550, therefore x = 1.032, or 3.2% growth week-on-week.
Taken together, that means Android growth actually slowed between 28 June and 14 July, a period of about 3 weeks. Because x^3 * 500 = 550, therefore x = 1.032, or 3.2% growth week-on-week.
You recognize that the 500K and 550K figures are likely rounded? For instance, when they tweeted 500K, it could have actually been 496K, and 550k could be an actual 553K. Just an example of course. And the latest quoted activation figure could be from a day or two ago. You'd need a bit more information than what's been given to make any solid claim that growth has slowed in the past 2-3 weeks.
Comments
You do realize that in order to create an idevice app that you need to own a mac. Therefore, your sunk costs are already at $1,000 (maybe a little less if you bought refurb or used). I highly doubt $99 is that big of a barrier (even for hobbyists).
the iPhone maker?s stringent approval process had delayed the launch of a reverse phone lookup app from WhitePages for two months, a far cry from the Apple-advertised ?95 percent of the apps are approved in two-weeks time?.
Am I the only one who thought that this part of the story made absolutely no sense? The guy from Whitepages would have a right to complain if Apple had claimed that 100% of apps are approved in two-weeks' time.
Obviously, that was not the case.
Also obvious: Whitepages falls within the 5% minority that has to wait more than two weeks. How is Apple in the wrong here?
Apple could accelerate this by making their iOS developer program free. I've never fully understood the $99 charge to get your app into the App Store. I understand it probably helps them offset the costs of hosting and distributing your software, but if they really wanted to knock Google developer support down a notch or two more, that would be a good way to go.
The $100/year plus enrollment greatly curtails malware. If Google wanted to stop the Malware issue in the Android Market, all they have to do is make becoming a developer slightly more difficult.
I keep seeing this 500,000 activation/day figure on ADroid. Has anyone seen verification of this #? It seems absurdly high.
Larry Page actually pegged the number at 550,000 today at the investor conference, which sounds nice but I'm still trying to wrap my head around and of course still needs confirmation from other sources.
Other than that:
Chrome install base is 160 Million and growing
Google's Revenue climbed to 9+ Billion, an increase of almost 33%. Net income at 2.51 Billion
Google plus is confirmed to have at least an install base of 10 Million users.
Google +1 button has overtaken the tweet button on websites.
And of course to shut the shareholders up, that the prime focus is profit.
Am I the only one who thought that this part of the story made absolutely no sense? The guy from Whitepages would have a right to complain if Apple had claimed that 100% of apps are approved in two-weeks' time.
Obviously, that was not the case.
Also obvious: Whitepages falls within the 5% minority that has to wait more than two weeks. How is Apple in the wrong here?
Crashes? Unusable? Watchdog issues?
Does this mean all of us who declared Apple really needed the Verizon iPhone get to say "I told you so!"?
Yes. Yes it does.
Wasn't arguing that. Regardless, history shows that plenty of great ideas come from hobbyist programmers and tinkerers. That $99 could be a significant barrier for that group.
Not what I was saying. I agree with all that. Apple's competitors are giving that away for free and that's the point I'm getting at. If Apple wants to further take the wind out of the sails of Android development, they can remove the $99 fee.
Not arguing the rationale behind the fee, just that it likely turns away a lot of hobbyists. Also, plenty of great ideas and apps have been created by hobbyists. They're not all out there making fart apps.
The cheap hobby based programmer can jailbreak for free and the dev tools are a free download.
It doesn't help Google that they are absolutely nowhere to be seen on the Lodsys issue. Apple is issuing C&Ds to Lodsys and bringing lawyers to bear. Given the speed with which the wheels of justice turn it may not be able to stop Lodsys forcing some developers to cough up, but nevertheless it induces a feeling that Apple cares about protecting developers from trolls.
Once again Google's cavalier attitude towards IP is biting their ass.
Perhaps it's in part because Lodsys hasn't filed any patent infringement lawsuits against any Android app and it's developer? I can't find one.
FWIW, the respected Florian Mueller (FOSS Patents) suggests that small developers bite the bullet and simply agree to a license. Apple has yet to throw any money in the ring to support their developers and may be listening too much to lawyer wannabe's on blog sites. Mr. Mueller writes that "It's additionally possible that some of them are such "fanbois" that they don't want to call out Apple (and Google) on their failure to really provide app developers with the guarantees that would be needed. Instead, Apple limits its damages to $50 per app developer."
The entire article at FOSS Patents is here:
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...rolls-are.html
Apple could accelerate this by making their iOS developer program free. I've never fully understood the $99 charge to get your app into the App Store. I understand it probably helps them offset the costs of hosting and distributing your software, but if they really wanted to knock Google developer support down a notch or two more, that would be a good way to go.
The $99 fee isn't a store listing fee per application. It's a flat annual fee for signing apps to run on an iOS device. You can write all the apps you want and you don't even have to list them on the App Store. You can just write apps for your own personal use.
If Apple reduced or waived the fee, I don't think the overall quality of apps would improve. We'd probably see even more fart apps, flashlight apps, and joke apps.
The fee also discourages iOS developers from writing malware, a growing problem with Android apps. After all, there's a credit card tied to the account. Makes it far easier for the Feds to find naughty programmers.
Not arguing the rationale behind the fee, just that it likely turns away a lot of hobbyists. Also, plenty of great ideas and apps have been created by hobbyists. They're not all out there making fart apps.
There are 400,000+ Apps that have delivered 15billion+ copies. It's clearly working fine.
^ Well said.
No. One a year is plenty. They sell every one they can build, they don't need to introduce a new model mid-year. Not to mention it would steal the spotlight from their other products.
Too late! They're already doing this.
If reports are to be believed we're going to be seeing a 2nd iPad model this year. Apple can no longer afford to be on a yearly update cycle. It is not the same situation, at all, as even 5 or 6 years ago when Apple would do 1 year refreshes on iPods.
I have no time for amateur hour, when I'm buying apps for my iPad.
Sure, apps that are basically trojan horses, intended solely to trick/entice users to share info for the purpose of resale and monetization will definitely face harsh treatment in approval. Since Google's business model is along the same lines, it doesn't object.
Perhaps it's in part because Lodsys hasn't filed any patent infringement lawsuits against any Android app and it's developer? I can't find one.
No - they have. http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/27/...gement-claims/
FWIW, the respected Florian Mueller (FOSS Patents) suggests that small developers bite the bullet and simply agree to a license. Apple has yet to throw any money in the ring to support their developers and may be listening too much to lawyer wannabe's on blog sites. Mr. Mueller writes that "It's additionally possible that some of them are such "fanbois" that they don't want to call out Apple (and Google) on their failure to really provide app developers with the guarantees that would be needed. Instead, Apple limits its damages to $50 per app developer."
Yes because Apple's approach with Lodsys will take longer than most developers can wait. Still you can't avoid the fact that unlike Google, Apple is actually doing something.
Of course Android should be first choice when developing an app that harvests users personal data for monetization. Apple isn't going to go for that. That's why they rejected White Pages caller-ID app since it wanted access to call history logs and contacts' info. If WP can't harvest user info, then how is it going to make money, or recover costs, if the app is free? I mean the user has to give them something that WP can aggregate and sell off.
Sure, apps that are basically trojan horses, intended solely to trick/entice users to share info for the purpose of resale and monetization will definitely face harsh treatment in approval. Since Google's business model is along the same lines, it doesn't object.
Whether or not it's officially sanctioned, there's well-known and top-rated AppStore apps that have fact transmitted private information, even unique identifiable data, without your permission according to a Wall Street Journal investigation.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...703574602.html
No - they have. http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/27/...gement-claims/
Yes because Apple's approach with Lodsys will take longer than most developers can wait. Still you can't avoid the fact that unlike Google, Apple is actually doing something.
In-App billing on Android is optional...Google has no obligation, although it would be nice if they did step in.
If you put your hand on a stove knowing it was hot..you will get burned.
That's only a claim that one Android developer received a letter from Lodsys if I read it correctly. I can't find any verification of that claim, much less that a lawsuit has actually been filed. Perhaps you have some link that shows the Android app that's been targeted?
And, as per my earlier post, we see that the app in question is yet another location aware/what's hot/social thing, which seems dominate whatever activity is happening in the Android app market.
Just fine for a phone, completely pointless on a tablet. At some point the Android community is going to realize that they're simply stuck in a phone ghetto, with everything revolving around chasing after whatever the latest startup is telling you you need to be "connected." Just look at the marketing-- it's all about social apps and media.
Meanwhile, tablets look poised to become the next computing paradigm, and the iPad is looking to dominate that space as completely as MS dominated the desktop paradigm. And, at some point, that's going to have an effect on phones as well, as iPad owners are far more likely to purchase an iPhone (if they haven't already) when it comes time to re-up.
Yours is the best comment yet. Apple has slowly and strategically built its position in the marketplace and now we are beginning to see just how integrated and synergistic their multi-tiered approach is.
The last butt hurt left from MS domination now fades into distant memory as the post-pc juggernaut now can not be stopped.
The loss in developer support for new projects, at least according to Flurry, comes as activation of new Android devices continues to surge. In June, Google Vice President of Engineering Andy Rubin revealed that there are now more than a half-million Android devices activated every day, and that number is growing at 4.4 percent worldwide.
When discussing growth rates, the time period is critical. Otherwise the entire article could be wrong.
According to a NetworkWorld article on 28 June, Andy Rubin claimed Android had 500K activations per day and grew 4.4% on a week-over-week basis.
http://www.networkworld.com/news/201...roid-500k.html
And Larry Page claims today in their earnings report that they are activating 550K devices per day.
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-...14-716320.html
Taken together, that means Android growth actually slowed between 28 June and 14 July, a period of about 3 weeks. Because x^3 * 500 = 550, therefore x = 1.032, or 3.2% growth week-on-week.
When discussing growth rates, the time period is critical. Otherwise the entire article could be wrong.
According to a NetworkWorld article on 28 June, Andy Rubin claimed Android had 500K activations per day and grew 4.4% on a week-over-week basis.
http://www.networkworld.com/news/201...roid-500k.html
And Larry Page claims today in their earnings report that they are activating 550K devices per day.
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-...14-716320.html
Taken together, that means Android growth actually slowed between 28 June and 14 July, a period of about 3 weeks. Because x^3 * 500 = 550, therefore x = 1.032, or 3.2% growth week-on-week.
You recognize that the 500K and 550K figures are likely rounded? For instance, when they tweeted 500K, it could have actually been 496K, and 550k could be an actual 553K. Just an example of course. And the latest quoted activation figure could be from a day or two ago. You'd need a bit more information than what's been given to make any solid claim that growth has slowed in the past 2-3 weeks.