I'm sorry... but is this REALLY a surprise to anyone?
I understand people are complaining about it, but I mean... come on people... Apple isn't really making products for 'us' These products are being made for them... Joe Consumer.
And the beauty of Apple is how locked down and seamless they are. How easy it is to perform operations. So I just don't see how it comes as a surprise that Apple will control this. I'll bet they'll make a section in the iTunes store, it will be quality controlled, and they'll get a cut of the royalties.
And how is Apple planning on preventing trojans from infecting a phone? Are they going to demand all source code and scrounge it for every possible task it does? Will then indemnify the end-user if a trojan gets passed their system and ends up on your iPhone and steals your contact info? There's no 'real' security against a trojan.
I think you are onto something with the idea of indemnifying the end-users. I think, however,
that it will be the software developers who have to do the indemnifying (of end-users, Apple,
AT&T). Part of the reason for requiring apps to be distributed through iTunes store may be
to require software developers to sign indemnification agreements, to protect Apple in the
event the apps contain malware. I feel that this reason is more significant that any desire
This is pretty much the exact same model as the console videogame industry.
Developers pay to create titles for PS3 and Xbox360.
The have to adhere to technical requirement checklists. - And pay to have their titles checked.
If the title fails the checklist - they have to pay again to resubmit.
Only the approved and checked titles are legally sold.
The system works. For most of the time.
Console games rarely crash. They don't undermine the platform .. and some of the time developers and the platform-holder actually make some money and share the revenue.
I'M not sure if the rumor is even worth responding to. Mainly because this discussion will be based on fact in a few days.
If there is truth here though I think Apple is making a big mistake. There are a number of reasons, I will highlight a few below.
1.
Corporations will not want internal apps distributed outside the company. So this isn't something that will make corporations think positively about the iPhone.
2.
Like wise I might not want to distribute personal apps this way either.
3.
Then you have the whole issue of people wanting to distribute apps of their making freely.
4.
Lack of access to the cradle connector strikes me as absolute stupidity. The connector offers huge potential for a number of applications.
In any event it will be interesting to see if Apple lives up to the pre event hype they are creating. This rumor more or less flies in the face of public statements already made. In any event this is one of the things that Apple has to get right in order for me to lay out my money. They only have a few months before the competition really heats up.
I disagree. Selling exclusively through the iTunes store will virtually guarantee that the apps are actually paid for, instead of pirated. This gives the developer a secure revenue stream, which should help keep prices down for the consumer. Everybody wins.
In the Palm and Windows Mobile market, piracy is rampant, so the majority of the apps are way overpriced for what they deliver. $20-$50 for "baby" software, as Steve would put it. Compare iPod games, for instance, with the average Palm OS game. The same game that's $25 for the Palm platform is $5 for the iPod. Ever wonder why?
I really haven't seen much as I have a few games and that's enough to keep me occupied. I got Bejeweled as a 5-pack of PopCap games for $20 for my Palm-based Tapwave. Bejeweled alone is $5 for the iPod. I think the Tapwave has a much better UI than the clickwheel. I'm pretty sure that'll change with the iPhone, the iPhone versions of all those games will most likely be at least a little better. I think the PalmOS game was tied to the SD card it's on, you'd have to hack it in order to run illegal copies of it.
I think the limited market for the software also plays into the pricing too, there are not so many devices with PalmOS or Windows Mobile. It's a much more splintered market than personal computers are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tchwojko
<wild guess>
Let's say you're a developer with the iPhone SDK. How do you test your app before going to the iTunes store? Emulators are NOT sufficient. So, I bet there would be a way for anyone with the SDK to put apps on the phone. (If not, and you're stuck with the emulator, then...yuck.)
I know there's now a rumor that iPhone will allow non-iTunes delivered sofware, but In your hypothetical situation, there could be a developer mode, or if you have to acquire a special developer-enabled model just like console developers have to use to test their games.
You whine about why Apple is not supporting your hacked phone.
You whine about Apple not opening up the iPhone.
You whine about Apple not providing an SDK.
Now that Apple is beginning the path to rev2.0 of the iPhone and slowly begin opening up the gates in a controlled, non-chaotic action, you whiners just have to find something else to whine about.
As a full-time software developer myself, I look at it from a perspective that Apple (for good or for bad) wants to continue providing high-quality applications to reach the iPhone. The software after all, is what makes the iPhone such a wonderful piece of art. If you don't like them being the gatekeeper as to what gets loaded, get over it. Sell your iPhone on Ebay and wait for Google's vaporware Android phone and then whine about it not being as nice as the iPhone. 99% of most software developed by weekend developers is just pure crap. Perhaps this method will motivate developers to actually create a properly designed app instead of the garbage that is mainly out there for other platforms. The 1% of the real stuff is made by people that will most likely not have a problem with what Apple is doing. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. It's too early too tell what Apple is going to do and you guys just feed off of conspiracies.
If iTunes is to be the hub for distribution, so be it. Hopefully that would end up reducing (or eliminating) the rampant piracy (i.e. palm apps) and maybe put a little money back in the pockets of the developers instead of being copied by freeloaders. If Apple opens the doors (which I hope they do) to cost-free applications, great!
It sounds like Apple is going to accommodate free software. How they pull it off will be interesting to see. Will they be able to make everyone happy? Probably not. But I appreciate the fact that Apple is more concerned with providing a user-experience to the majority Joes than to try to lick the vocal minorities (whiners). If they did it the reverse, they would probably be out of business because nothing satisfies you guys.
So wait and see what they actually do instead of coming to a conclusion based on rumors. I look forward to what Apple does. You should be too.
But I appreciate the fact that Apple is more concerned with providing a user-experience to the majority Joes than to try to lick the vocal minorities (whiners). If they did it the reverse, they would probably be out of business because nothing satisfies you guys.
Would it be possible for a moderator to post this at the head of every thread?
Re crashing a cell network, some friends of mine recently developed a mobile tracking application for a Motorola team building event (you know the sort of thing, give all the competitors a GPS-enabled device and have it upload their current position and status to a server so people could track how they were doing). It all worked beautifully for the first couple of hours, until it crashed two local cell towers which weren't used to handling that much data all of a sudden. And not just data - those base stations were out of action for the rest of the day, including for voice and emergency calls. So yes, it's DEFINITELY possible for a malicious or even totally innocent mobile application to have an undesirable impact on the network.
But the real point of controlling what applications can do is no doubt to protect revenue streams. The network operators make money from services like phone calls and text messages, so they're not going to allow you to undercut that, for example by using 3rd party software to make VOIP calls for free under an unlimited data plan.
Additionally, the only reason they can offer unlimited data for the iPhone is that they know that in practice users who are checking their emails and browsing the web will use much less than they theoretically could. If every iPhone user suddenly started transferring data at the maximum rate non-stop it would very quickly bring the entire network to its knees as there's only a finite capacity in practice. It doesn't seem unreasonable of Apple or the network operators to be concerned about this and restrict what you can do therefore. Would any of you rather have a situation where you can freely install any software you wanted, including VOIP, IM etc., but had to pay 10c/megabyte for all your data??
Having a tiered system makes a lot of sense. Free apps require no vetting but as a result you have limited access to the phone, but if you want to go deeper into the phone you need to have the software approved before you develop it.
Best post in an otherwise largely uninformative, needlessly contentious, and mostly inside-baseball thread.
Actually, I think you both don't understand the amount of people needed to check all the little apps that will come in based on the SDK. Last I heard you don't have to pay for the SDK and anyone can program for the phone if the want to. They may limit the SDK so that critical functionality can't be crippled on the phone based on a bug in the application, but they don't have enough people to check all the apps that will be submitted to itunes... Think widgets, they wouldn't have enough people to check all of them for security or performance.
Thats just my opinion, so I won't believe anything for sure until I hear what the roadmap is and the process for filing apps for the iphone.
Comments
I understand people are complaining about it, but I mean... come on people... Apple isn't really making products for 'us' These products are being made for them... Joe Consumer.
And the beauty of Apple is how locked down and seamless they are. How easy it is to perform operations. So I just don't see how it comes as a surprise that Apple will control this. I'll bet they'll make a section in the iTunes store, it will be quality controlled, and they'll get a cut of the royalties.
Apple to serve as regulator for iPhone app distribution
Well duh.
I'm sorry... but is this REALLY a surprise to anyone?
I can't answer for anyone else, but this was 100% obvious to me.
Time to catch up to the news
Free apps without approvals
A rumour that contradicts this thread, which one is true.
And how is Apple planning on preventing trojans from infecting a phone? Are they going to demand all source code and scrounge it for every possible task it does? Will then indemnify the end-user if a trojan gets passed their system and ends up on your iPhone and steals your contact info? There's no 'real' security against a trojan.
I think you are onto something with the idea of indemnifying the end-users. I think, however,
that it will be the software developers who have to do the indemnifying (of end-users, Apple,
AT&T). Part of the reason for requiring apps to be distributed through iTunes store may be
to require software developers to sign indemnification agreements, to protect Apple in the
event the apps contain malware. I feel that this reason is more significant that any desire
Steve Jobs has to spoil peoples' good times.
A rumour that contradicts this thread, which one is true.
everybody get your opinions in....only 6 more days to speculate
Developers pay to create titles for PS3 and Xbox360.
The have to adhere to technical requirement checklists. - And pay to have their titles checked.
If the title fails the checklist - they have to pay again to resubmit.
Only the approved and checked titles are legally sold.
The system works. For most of the time.
Console games rarely crash. They don't undermine the platform .. and some of the time developers and the platform-holder actually make some money and share the revenue.
C.
Time to catch up to the news
Free apps without approvals
This one makes sense.
If there is truth here though I think Apple is making a big mistake. There are a number of reasons, I will highlight a few below.
1.
Corporations will not want internal apps distributed outside the company. So this isn't something that will make corporations think positively about the iPhone.
2.
Like wise I might not want to distribute personal apps this way either.
3.
Then you have the whole issue of people wanting to distribute apps of their making freely.
4.
Lack of access to the cradle connector strikes me as absolute stupidity. The connector offers huge potential for a number of applications.
In any event it will be interesting to see if Apple lives up to the pre event hype they are creating. This rumor more or less flies in the face of public statements already made. In any event this is one of the things that Apple has to get right in order for me to lay out my money. They only have a few months before the competition really heats up.
DAve
He was flaming me
But thanks anyway
Actually I was correcting you.
4.
Lack of access to the cradle connector strikes me as absolute stupidity. The connector offers huge potential for a number of applications.
I have a feeling Apple may want to cash in on that huge potential themselves,
or in partnership with companies they prefer, by creating their own
accessories.
I disagree. Selling exclusively through the iTunes store will virtually guarantee that the apps are actually paid for, instead of pirated. This gives the developer a secure revenue stream, which should help keep prices down for the consumer. Everybody wins.
In the Palm and Windows Mobile market, piracy is rampant, so the majority of the apps are way overpriced for what they deliver. $20-$50 for "baby" software, as Steve would put it. Compare iPod games, for instance, with the average Palm OS game. The same game that's $25 for the Palm platform is $5 for the iPod. Ever wonder why?
I really haven't seen much as I have a few games and that's enough to keep me occupied. I got Bejeweled as a 5-pack of PopCap games for $20 for my Palm-based Tapwave. Bejeweled alone is $5 for the iPod. I think the Tapwave has a much better UI than the clickwheel. I'm pretty sure that'll change with the iPhone, the iPhone versions of all those games will most likely be at least a little better. I think the PalmOS game was tied to the SD card it's on, you'd have to hack it in order to run illegal copies of it.
I think the limited market for the software also plays into the pricing too, there are not so many devices with PalmOS or Windows Mobile. It's a much more splintered market than personal computers are.
<wild guess>
Let's say you're a developer with the iPhone SDK. How do you test your app before going to the iTunes store? Emulators are NOT sufficient. So, I bet there would be a way for anyone with the SDK to put apps on the phone. (If not, and you're stuck with the emulator, then...yuck.)
I know there's now a rumor that iPhone will allow non-iTunes delivered sofware, but In your hypothetical situation, there could be a developer mode, or if you have to acquire a special developer-enabled model just like console developers have to use to test their games.
Well duh.
Best post in an otherwise largely uninformative, needlessly contentious, and mostly inside-baseball thread.
Best post in an otherwise largely uninformative, needlessly contentious, and mostly inside-baseball thread.
Lol, well in that case this is the second best post
You whine about Apple not opening up the iPhone.
You whine about Apple not providing an SDK.
Now that Apple is beginning the path to rev2.0 of the iPhone and slowly begin opening up the gates in a controlled, non-chaotic action, you whiners just have to find something else to whine about.
As a full-time software developer myself, I look at it from a perspective that Apple (for good or for bad) wants to continue providing high-quality applications to reach the iPhone. The software after all, is what makes the iPhone such a wonderful piece of art. If you don't like them being the gatekeeper as to what gets loaded, get over it. Sell your iPhone on Ebay and wait for Google's vaporware Android phone and then whine about it not being as nice as the iPhone. 99% of most software developed by weekend developers is just pure crap. Perhaps this method will motivate developers to actually create a properly designed app instead of the garbage that is mainly out there for other platforms. The 1% of the real stuff is made by people that will most likely not have a problem with what Apple is doing. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. It's too early too tell what Apple is going to do and you guys just feed off of conspiracies.
If iTunes is to be the hub for distribution, so be it. Hopefully that would end up reducing (or eliminating) the rampant piracy (i.e. palm apps) and maybe put a little money back in the pockets of the developers instead of being copied by freeloaders. If Apple opens the doors (which I hope they do) to cost-free applications, great!
It sounds like Apple is going to accommodate free software. How they pull it off will be interesting to see. Will they be able to make everyone happy? Probably not. But I appreciate the fact that Apple is more concerned with providing a user-experience to the majority Joes than to try to lick the vocal minorities (whiners). If they did it the reverse, they would probably be out of business because nothing satisfies you guys.
So wait and see what they actually do instead of coming to a conclusion based on rumors. I look forward to what Apple does. You should be too.
But I appreciate the fact that Apple is more concerned with providing a user-experience to the majority Joes than to try to lick the vocal minorities (whiners). If they did it the reverse, they would probably be out of business because nothing satisfies you guys.
Would it be possible for a moderator to post this at the head of every thread?
But the real point of controlling what applications can do is no doubt to protect revenue streams. The network operators make money from services like phone calls and text messages, so they're not going to allow you to undercut that, for example by using 3rd party software to make VOIP calls for free under an unlimited data plan.
Additionally, the only reason they can offer unlimited data for the iPhone is that they know that in practice users who are checking their emails and browsing the web will use much less than they theoretically could. If every iPhone user suddenly started transferring data at the maximum rate non-stop it would very quickly bring the entire network to its knees as there's only a finite capacity in practice. It doesn't seem unreasonable of Apple or the network operators to be concerned about this and restrict what you can do therefore. Would any of you rather have a situation where you can freely install any software you wanted, including VOIP, IM etc., but had to pay 10c/megabyte for all your data??
Time to catch up to the news
Free apps without approvals
Having a tiered system makes a lot of sense. Free apps require no vetting but as a result you have limited access to the phone, but if you want to go deeper into the phone you need to have the software approved before you develop it.
Best post in an otherwise largely uninformative, needlessly contentious, and mostly inside-baseball thread.
Actually, I think you both don't understand the amount of people needed to check all the little apps that will come in based on the SDK. Last I heard you don't have to pay for the SDK and anyone can program for the phone if the want to. They may limit the SDK so that critical functionality can't be crippled on the phone based on a bug in the application, but they don't have enough people to check all the apps that will be submitted to itunes... Think widgets, they wouldn't have enough people to check all of them for security or performance.
Thats just my opinion, so I won't believe anything for sure until I hear what the roadmap is and the process for filing apps for the iphone.