So why do they use Apple's "walled garden" for the Mac App Store? It's still the same 30% cut and there is a much richer selection of titles with some developers no longer maintaining their own website, downloads, licensing service since MAS started. I never tell techtarded friends and family to buy apps outside the MAS if it's available there.
And let's remember that free apps that are popular cost nothing to be hosted or advertised or anything else the iOS or Mac App Store does. Those having 30% taken are paying for these other apps but I don't see that as a problem, especially when you consider how much vendors like BB and MS charged before Apple released the App Store in 2008.
I don't have a problem with the walled garden. It's the best way to ensure that the techtards don't screw up their computer. My point was that even without the walled garden devs would still be able to make money without little reliance on Apple. Apple helps them earn but it doesn't earn for them.
My point was that even without the walled garden devs would still be able to make money without little reliance on Apple.
To an extent I agree but it seems to me that there are a lot more independent developers being able to make popular apps that before. I'll peruse the Mac App Store or read about an app and if it happened to be on MAS and at a reasonable price I'll buy it without thinking twice. I can't say I ever did that before MAS.
I wonder how the iPhone would have fared if there had there just been an SDK with side loaded apps. I can't imagine it wouldn't have been as successful for Apple or developers, and I doubt Xcode would have gotten the attention it gets now.
OK, I think this is getting into semantics here. Yes, Beyoncé made herself money by being talented (which includes hiring talented people to help her make money). In this case she essentially hired Apple to sell her album exclusively because it was a means to an end for her to make more money. But she's still choosing Apple over Amazon or Target or Walmart to maximize her profits.
Then you understand my point, "for her to make money, not for Apple to make her money like many here would suggest happened.
Then you understand my point, "for her to make money, not for Apple to make her money like many here would suggest happened.
But that's only looking at it from one view. Apple sets up their model a to entice content owners to sell their products through them so Apple can make money. It's a symbiotic relationship.
Now you are clutching at straws. Possible...could... if... theoretically.... So, if the developers could sell their apps elsewhere, would that ensure that the app makes money? Or is that another completely irrelevant distraction to the discussion?
No but neither does being in the app store ensure them money. My whole point is that these devs could make money without Apple but Apple could not get their cut if it weren't for devs making apps. Apple doesn't make money for them it makes money from them.
OK - I see what you are saying. It's predicated on an incorrect assumption - namely that the developers are a single entity providing the software for Apple's platform, which permits the argument that Apple needs the developers but the developers don't need Apple because they could develop for a different platform. This ignores the market forces that define iOS as the most profitable platform by far, and renders the individual developers powerless to affect that domination. Even Google, as a developer for iOS and owner of an alternative platform, has been unable to change it.
It's clearly a partnership. As many have pointed out, Apple supplies the devices, the operating system, the APIs and developer tools, the app store and the sales infrastructure to get the software efficiently to the customers. The developers, who vote with their time and effort that this is the most profitable use of their resources, provide the apps. In theory, Apple could ditch the developers and write their own apps, and the developers could ditch Apple and subsist on other platforms. Pointless observation. Neither is happening, because neither would be as good for Apple or for the developers. Your entire argument is bogus.
The points made in this article are certainly valid. However, it should be noted that in the fiscal year ended September 2013, Apple's earnings per share decreased for the first time in more than a decade, falling 10% year on year. This contrasts with EPS growth of 67%, 83% an 60% in each of the three preceding years. While it is true that analysts and journalists of all kinds in this wired era seem to have discovered that trashing Apple is a surefire way to increase page views, it cannot be denied that a large part of the the past year's flight from Apple stock is attributable to the fact that Apple's profit growth had not just stalled, but gone into reverse. The question now is whether Apple can restore profit growth in the year ahead. Personally, I believe that they will do that. When that happens the price of the stock will almost surely rise.
To an extent I agree but it seems to me that there are a lot more independent developers being able to make popular apps that before. I'll peruse the Mac App Store or read about an app and if it happened to be on MAS and at a reasonable price I'll buy it without thinking twice. I can't say I ever did that before MAS.
I wonder how the iPhone would have fared if there had there just been an SDK with side loaded apps. I can't imagine it wouldn't have been as successful for Apple or developers, and I doubt Xcode would have gotten the attention it gets now.
I'm in no way discounting the benefits the app store offers. It's the absolute ideal way for a dev to earn money. I see it this way; Apple build a strong and solid foundation that devs have build a beautiful tower on.
Then you understand my point, "for her to make money, not for Apple to make her money like many here would suggest happened.
But that's only looking at it from one view. Apple sets up their model a to entice content owners to sell their products through them so Apple can make money. It's a symbiotic relationship.
And this example is actually far less symbiotic than the subject of the discussion, since an artist of international renown has multiple options to reach the consumer. In the case of developers and iOS, Apple provides something that is not available elsewhere - effectively a large element of the content itself - the leading platform on which to run ones apps.
Well that's hardly true now is it? It's not difficult to find numerous examples of recent updates and new features added to existing Google services. I bet you could find examples for yourself if you actually wanted to even using the less-capable Bing for your search. :rolleyes:
Try these search phrases if you can't figure out what to ask for:
Google updates Maps
or
Google updates Search
or
Google updates GMail
or
Google updates Chrome
As obtuse as ever.
Please show where typing in a search term today somehow finds me information that it didn't one year ago. Or two years ago. Google search is actually worse now that the first set of hits are sponsored and don't accurately reflect what a person is looking for.
And adding new features to their services doesn't increase their operating costs. Or are you going to claim that tweaking their algorithms suddenly doubles the server workload? Or that it costs a fortune for Google developers to add some features to Gmail?
Chrome? You actually brought that POS up as a bullet point?
And this example is actually far less symbiotic than the subject of the discussion, since an artist of international renown has multiple options to reach the consumer.
Having other options doesn't mean it's not an dvantage of both, bit I see your point and do think complementary or reciprocal would have been a better word choice.
OK - I see what you are saying. It's predicated on an incorrect assumption - namely that the developers are a single entity providing the software for Apple's platform, which permits the argument that Apple needs the developers but the developers don't need Apple because they could develop for a different platform. This ignores the market forces that define iOS as the most profitable platform by far, and renders the individual developers powerless to affect that domination. Even Google, as a developer for iOS and owner of an alternative platform, has been unable to change it.
It's clearly a partnership. As many have pointed out, Apple supplies the devices, the operating system, the APIs and developer tools, the app store and the sales infrastructure to get the software efficiently to the customers. The developers, who vote with their time and effort that this is the most profitable use of their resources, provide the apps. In theory, Apple could ditch the developers and write their own apps, and the developers could ditch Apple and subsist on other platforms. Pointless observation. Neither is happening, because neither would be as good for Apple or for the developers. Your entire argument is bogus.
I disagree, I think developers and their apps have greatly influenced the popularity of iOS devices. I've read several posters on here who toyed with the idea of going to Android because they wanted a bigger phone but decided against it because their favorite apps were only on iOS. In that case it was the strength of the developer that kept the user and not Apple.
And this example is actually far less symbiotic than the subject of the discussion, since an artist of international renown has multiple options to reach the consumer. In the case of developers and iOS, Apple provides something that is not available elsewhere - effectively a large element of the content itself - the leading platform on which to run ones apps.
The discussion started when EricTheHalfBee wrote this. "Apple made money for content providers, musicians, App developers, accessory makers, advertisers, oh, and lots of component suppliers.
Apple also made money for Google and Microsoft."
And my argument was that content providers earn money for themselves with Apple earning a cut. Yes Apple provides the means for someone to earn but it surely doesn’t earn for them. How much they earn is entirely up to them whether it be a musician or a dev.
Ah insult time again. That must mean you're running out of logical counter-arguments and I'm winning.
You claimed what "pisses you off" is that Google doesn't do anything to make their existing services better. That's easily proven to be false. Personally I think the only thing that "pisses you off" about Google is that they're competing with Apple in some of the same market spaces and vice-versa, Apple is entering some of the same markets as Google. Seeing a few ads is hardly hate-worthy so folks gotta make something up so they don't sound so silly I suppose. This particular reason you've cited doesn't hold water IMO.
Compare that with Apple which is up a paltry 5% year-to-date even though the S&P 500 is up 29% and the Nasdaq is up 38%. How is it that Google and Microsoft stock is up double digits if they had such a bad year?
Google and Microsoft both made more profits in 2013 than they did in 2012. A company that makes more money is valued higher. So their stock price (valuation) went up. Apple made less money in 2013 than it did in 2012, but investors gave it the benefit of the doubt on future outlook and drove the price up anyway.
Even though Apples profits are in decline, they are still higher than Google's or Microsoft's and so they are still valued with a substantially higher market cap than the prior two companies.
I don't have a problem with the walled garden. It's the best way to ensure that the techtards don't screw up their computer. My point was that even without the walled garden devs would still be able to make money without little reliance on Apple. Apple helps them earn but it doesn't earn for them.
BTW, they aren't ''techtards", they're consumers. They've purchased an appliance, not bought into a new career.
If you really are a dev, you might want to remember that when you're creating an app for them.
Subject: A comment concerning analytical and factual errors in the presented editorial.
First off, I believe that the bulk of the article is well presented. However, several errors mar the editorial and confer a sense of bias. Most of this begins in the latter sections concerning the ugly year shared by Google, Microsoft and Samsung.
"crisis they had invented surrounding Apple's own bundled Maps offering"
Switching from Google powered Maps to Apple Maps with ios 6 came with a number of feature losses. While it was certainly not a "crisis" it not exactly something to tout as irrelevant.
64-bit chips:
64 bit chips will do nothing for CPU performance in the short term, period. In the long term, they will facilitate use of more than 4 GBs of memory (RAM). This will be important in the future, but is mostly irrelevant now.
"Google doesn't even have an articulated 64-bit strategy for Android because Android isn't moving forward as a cutting edge mobile platform"
Unless you count Motorola, Google doesn't make chips. It supplies an OS. Furthermore, Android is a modified version of linux, an operating system that has been 64-bit compliant before Apple (even before OSX). Other than driver development, (which is usually handled by the phone manufacturer as part of the phone development process) there is not much that changes. 32-bit applications will run on a 64-bit machine, and unless you want to run physics simulations on your phone, this is pretty much irrelevant to app developers as well.
"Windows Phone 8 last winter with little success apart from whittling Nokia down into an acquirable size through the sheer destruction of its smartphone sales. "
I'm quite certain that Nokia experienced year over year smartphone growth. No one can confuse them with any of the big players right now, but its market share tripled from Q2 to Q3. Nokia's market share was "destroyed" years ago. If we're discussing 2013, the truth is that they experienced growth (even though it was relatively small).
" Windows 8.1, which managed to further damage a major market that was actually wildly successful at one point: the Windows PC"
I don't really see how 8.1 damaged anything in particular. Maybe Windows 8 did but 8.1 is just a service pack. It wasn't panned and it wasn't the greatest thing since sliced bread. it just was.
"Samsung was hailed as the heir apparent of Apple: innovative, expanding and profitable."
What are you smoking? I've never heard this from anyone ever. ( Personal Opinion: I do think samsung innovates from a technology, circuit, and manufacturing point of view, I've just never heard it from anyone in the tech media.)
I could go on but much of the article is just factual distortion and biased supposition. There is a lot of truth in the article, but it's being bathed in crude oil.
64-Bit chips - 64 bit chips will do nothing for CPU performance in the short term, period. In the long term, they will facilitate use of more than 4 GBs of memory (RAM). This will be important in the future, but is mostly irrelevant now.
Just to clarify. I'm not saying that the 64-bit A7 is slower. I'm saying that the fact that it is 64-bit is irrelevant to performance in the near term, i.e, if it were a 32-bit A7, it would probably have nearly identical performance.
Just to clarify. I'm not saying that the 64-bit A7 is slower. Im saying that the fact that it is 64-bit is irrelevant to performance in the near term. In other words, if it were a 32-bit A7 it would probably have nearly identical performance.
So why do otherwise identical apps compiled in 64-bit mode run up to 25% faster than when they’re compiled in 32-bit mode on the same device?
Comments
I don't have a problem with the walled garden. It's the best way to ensure that the techtards don't screw up their computer. My point was that even without the walled garden devs would still be able to make money without little reliance on Apple. Apple helps them earn but it doesn't earn for them.
To an extent I agree but it seems to me that there are a lot more independent developers being able to make popular apps that before. I'll peruse the Mac App Store or read about an app and if it happened to be on MAS and at a reasonable price I'll buy it without thinking twice. I can't say I ever did that before MAS.
I wonder how the iPhone would have fared if there had there just been an SDK with side loaded apps. I can't imagine it wouldn't have been as successful for Apple or developers, and I doubt Xcode would have gotten the attention it gets now.
Then you understand my point, "for her to make money, not for Apple to make her money like many here would suggest happened.
But that's only looking at it from one view. Apple sets up their model a to entice content owners to sell their products through them so Apple can make money. It's a symbiotic relationship.
Now you are clutching at straws. Possible...could... if... theoretically.... So, if the developers could sell their apps elsewhere, would that ensure that the app makes money? Or is that another completely irrelevant distraction to the discussion?
No but neither does being in the app store ensure them money. My whole point is that these devs could make money without Apple but Apple could not get their cut if it weren't for devs making apps. Apple doesn't make money for them it makes money from them.
OK - I see what you are saying. It's predicated on an incorrect assumption - namely that the developers are a single entity providing the software for Apple's platform, which permits the argument that Apple needs the developers but the developers don't need Apple because they could develop for a different platform. This ignores the market forces that define iOS as the most profitable platform by far, and renders the individual developers powerless to affect that domination. Even Google, as a developer for iOS and owner of an alternative platform, has been unable to change it.
It's clearly a partnership. As many have pointed out, Apple supplies the devices, the operating system, the APIs and developer tools, the app store and the sales infrastructure to get the software efficiently to the customers. The developers, who vote with their time and effort that this is the most profitable use of their resources, provide the apps. In theory, Apple could ditch the developers and write their own apps, and the developers could ditch Apple and subsist on other platforms. Pointless observation. Neither is happening, because neither would be as good for Apple or for the developers. Your entire argument is bogus.
The points made in this article are certainly valid. However, it should be noted that in the fiscal year ended September 2013, Apple's earnings per share decreased for the first time in more than a decade, falling 10% year on year. This contrasts with EPS growth of 67%, 83% an 60% in each of the three preceding years. While it is true that analysts and journalists of all kinds in this wired era seem to have discovered that trashing Apple is a surefire way to increase page views, it cannot be denied that a large part of the the past year's flight from Apple stock is attributable to the fact that Apple's profit growth had not just stalled, but gone into reverse. The question now is whether Apple can restore profit growth in the year ahead. Personally, I believe that they will do that. When that happens the price of the stock will almost surely rise.
I'm in no way discounting the benefits the app store offers. It's the absolute ideal way for a dev to earn money. I see it this way; Apple build a strong and solid foundation that devs have build a beautiful tower on.
Then you understand my point, "for her to make money, not for Apple to make her money like many here would suggest happened.
But that's only looking at it from one view. Apple sets up their model a to entice content owners to sell their products through them so Apple can make money. It's a symbiotic relationship.
And this example is actually far less symbiotic than the subject of the discussion, since an artist of international renown has multiple options to reach the consumer. In the case of developers and iOS, Apple provides something that is not available elsewhere - effectively a large element of the content itself - the leading platform on which to run ones apps.
As obtuse as ever.
Please show where typing in a search term today somehow finds me information that it didn't one year ago. Or two years ago. Google search is actually worse now that the first set of hits are sponsored and don't accurately reflect what a person is looking for.
And adding new features to their services doesn't increase their operating costs. Or are you going to claim that tweaking their algorithms suddenly doubles the server workload? Or that it costs a fortune for Google developers to add some features to Gmail?
Chrome? You actually brought that POS up as a bullet point?
Having other options doesn't mean it's not an dvantage of both, bit I see your point and do think complementary or reciprocal would have been a better word choice.
I disagree, I think developers and their apps have greatly influenced the popularity of iOS devices. I've read several posters on here who toyed with the idea of going to Android because they wanted a bigger phone but decided against it because their favorite apps were only on iOS. In that case it was the strength of the developer that kept the user and not Apple.
The discussion started when EricTheHalfBee wrote this. "Apple made money for content providers, musicians, App developers, accessory makers, advertisers, oh, and lots of component suppliers.
Apple also made money for Google and Microsoft."
And my argument was that content providers earn money for themselves with Apple earning a cut. Yes Apple provides the means for someone to earn but it surely doesn’t earn for them. How much they earn is entirely up to them whether it be a musician or a dev.
Ah insult time again. That must mean you're running out of logical counter-arguments and I'm winning.
You claimed what "pisses you off" is that Google doesn't do anything to make their existing services better. That's easily proven to be false. Personally I think the only thing that "pisses you off" about Google is that they're competing with Apple in some of the same market spaces and vice-versa, Apple is entering some of the same markets as Google. Seeing a few ads is hardly hate-worthy so folks gotta make something up so they don't sound so silly I suppose. This particular reason you've cited doesn't hold water IMO.
Compare that with Apple which is up a paltry 5% year-to-date even though the S&P 500 is up 29% and the Nasdaq is up 38%. How is it that Google and Microsoft stock is up double digits if they had such a bad year?
Google and Microsoft both made more profits in 2013 than they did in 2012. A company that makes more money is valued higher. So their stock price (valuation) went up. Apple made less money in 2013 than it did in 2012, but investors gave it the benefit of the doubt on future outlook and drove the price up anyway.
Even though Apples profits are in decline, they are still higher than Google's or Microsoft's and so they are still valued with a substantially higher market cap than the prior two companies.
I don't have a problem with the walled garden. It's the best way to ensure that the techtards don't screw up their computer. My point was that even without the walled garden devs would still be able to make money without little reliance on Apple. Apple helps them earn but it doesn't earn for them.
BTW, they aren't ''techtards", they're consumers. They've purchased an appliance, not bought into a new career.
If you really are a dev, you might want to remember that when you're creating an app for them.
First off, I believe that the bulk of the article is well presented. However, several errors mar the editorial and confer a sense of bias. Most of this begins in the latter sections concerning the ugly year shared by Google, Microsoft and Samsung.
"crisis they had invented surrounding Apple's own bundled Maps offering"
Switching from Google powered Maps to Apple Maps with ios 6 came with a number of feature losses. While it was certainly not a "crisis" it not exactly something to tout as irrelevant.
64-bit chips:
64 bit chips will do nothing for CPU performance in the short term, period. In the long term, they will facilitate use of more than 4 GBs of memory (RAM). This will be important in the future, but is mostly irrelevant now.
"Google doesn't even have an articulated 64-bit strategy for Android because Android isn't moving forward as a cutting edge mobile platform"
Unless you count Motorola, Google doesn't make chips. It supplies an OS. Furthermore, Android is a modified version of linux, an operating system that has been 64-bit compliant before Apple (even before OSX). Other than driver development, (which is usually handled by the phone manufacturer as part of the phone development process) there is not much that changes. 32-bit applications will run on a 64-bit machine, and unless you want to run physics simulations on your phone, this is pretty much irrelevant to app developers as well.
"Windows Phone 8 last winter with little success apart from whittling Nokia down into an acquirable size through the sheer destruction of its smartphone sales. "
I'm quite certain that Nokia experienced year over year smartphone growth. No one can confuse them with any of the big players right now, but its market share tripled from Q2 to Q3. Nokia's market share was "destroyed" years ago. If we're discussing 2013, the truth is that they experienced growth (even though it was relatively small).
" Windows 8.1, which managed to further damage a major market that was actually wildly successful at one point: the Windows PC"
I don't really see how 8.1 damaged anything in particular. Maybe Windows 8 did but 8.1 is just a service pack. It wasn't panned and it wasn't the greatest thing since sliced bread. it just was.
"Samsung was hailed as the heir apparent of Apple: innovative, expanding and profitable."
What are you smoking? I've never heard this from anyone ever. ( Personal Opinion: I do think samsung innovates from a technology, circuit, and manufacturing point of view, I've just never heard it from anyone in the tech media.)
I could go on but much of the article is just factual distortion and biased supposition. There is a lot of truth in the article, but it's being bathed in crude oil.
Yeah, that’s totally wrong.
Ugh. So why didn't you blast SolipsismX for using that term first?
Just to clarify. I'm not saying that the 64-bit A7 is slower. I'm saying that the fact that it is 64-bit is irrelevant to performance in the near term, i.e, if it were a 32-bit A7, it would probably have nearly identical performance.
So why do otherwise identical apps compiled in 64-bit mode run up to 25% faster than when they’re compiled in 32-bit mode on the same device?