Sourceforge.net and Google Code being but two of many.
They also provide free web space, database, subversion repository, bug trackers, forums and more for your project.
The problem with the iPhone is you can't install apps other than from Apple's app store or if you've compiled it yourself through XCode and installed it using your developer licence. That's not a major problem since at least Apple realise they need to 'sell' apps for free but it's a pity you've got to pay $99 to Apple to do so and you can't host it elsewhere.
It'll be broken in a matter of weeks though and there will be an installer that lets you install any app without going through Apple I reckon so not a problem really.
1) Some obscure stores or non-organized sytem for installing Mobile OS X apps would be fine for technical people but that isnt' good for the average person. These are the people is targeting. These people don't have jailbroken devices. The iTunes App Store is an easy, centalized way of finding any an d all apps that you may ever need. It's the only viable option for the average person.
2) Once 2.0 is available (assuming the SDK is still free and doesn't require an upgrade) you will be able to copy the app directly to your device for testing. THey showed it being done in the keynote.
3) I think there very well may be a hack to allow apps to be installed. I don't see why Apple woluld make it any more difficult except to limit unlockers. If it does happen, it won't be the most popular approach to get apps on the iPhone and only be used for apps that Apple disapproves of. Everything else will be gladly shuffled through the iTAS.
1) Some obscure stores or non-organized sytem for installing Mobile OS X apps would be fine for technical people but that isnt' good for the average person. These are the people is targeting. These people don't have jailbroken devices. The iTunes App Store is an easy, centalized way of finding any an d all apps that you may ever need. It's the only viable option for the average person.
We've coped fine with installing apps on Macs from multiple sotes. I don't think a single store from only Apple is really the ONLY viable option.
I imagine the Handango, MacUpdate and Versiontracker people are quite pissed off with the decision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
2) Once 2.0 is available (assuming the SDK is still free and doesn't require an upgrade) you will be able to copy the app directly to your device for testing. THey showed it being done in the keynote.
You still have to pay the $99 fee to test the app on your iPhone from what I gather, or $299 if you don't want the app to end up in the App Store and only used in house. I can't tell for sure though because Apple are only allowing US developers to download the SDK just now. They say it'll be available to non-US in a few months. Hmmm. That'll make you popular with the international community.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
3) I think there very well may be a hack to allow apps to be installed. I don't see why Apple woluld make it any more difficult except to limit unlockers. If it does happen, it won't be the most popular approach to get apps on the iPhone and only be used for apps that Apple disapproves of. Everything else will be gladly shuffled through the iTAS.
We'll see. I still think they need to rethink access for open source projects. Perhaps if you're not an open source developer, you don't understand our motivations, which aren't always commercial.
You still have to pay the $99 fee to test the app on your iPhone from what I gather, or $299 if you don't want the app to end up in the App Store and only used in house. I can't tell for sure though because Apple are only allowing US developers to download the SDK just now. They say it'll be available to non-US in a few months. Hmmm. That'll make you popular with the international community.
So far eh SDK is free. If I had the beta version of 2.0 then I could export as many apps as I wish to my device for free. The $99 still refers to obtaining an electronic certificate to post apps.
PS: The iPhone SDk is on torrent sites.
Quote:
We'll see. I still think they need to rethink access for open source projects. Perhaps if you're not an open source developer, you don't understand our motivations, which aren't always commercial.
As I stated, you can always post your code so others can build upon it and install it on to a device without posting to iTAS. All you need is the SDK and mOS X v2.0. It's in the keynote.
you don't understand our motivations, which aren't always commercial.
This is where the logic eludes me. Can you talk about what some of the other motivations are? If they're to get one's name out there, certainly that has distinct personal and presumably future economic benefits. If $99 is too much for someone, that strongly suggests they aren't that committed.
If it's a purely beneficence motivation, what's another $99 when presumably one has sacrificed far more than that in terms of labor hours?
I just find it hard to get around the fact that $99 is one piddling amount of money. Enough to keep idiots out, and yet still be virtually meaningless for everyone else.
This is where the logic eludes me. Can you talk about what some of the other motivations are? If they're to get one's name out there, certainly that has distinct personal and presumably future economic benefits. If $99 is too much for someone, that strongly suggests they aren't that committed.
If it's a purely beneficence motivation, what's another $99 when presumably one has sacrificed far more than that in terms of labor hours?
I just find it hard to get around the fact that $99 is one piddling amount of money. Enough to keep idiots out, and yet still be virtually meaningless for everyone else.
I think his complaint is more the lack of open source code on iTAS as you can't install an app from the iTAS and then alter it yourself. At the very least, you'd have to download the source code from a 3rd-party site before editing it. I don't think he realized you can install apps via the SDK directly onto the devices.
Yes, the logic of FOSS development often does elude people. Sometimes there is no logic. Not everything has to be logical. Anarchy is as much a valid reason for doing it as the dollar.
The likelihood of someone spontaneously releasing software for free is diminished by charging an entry fee.
How many of us use fink ?
How likely do you think that would be as widespread if each developer porting an app had to pay to release their code?
I also don't think it's healthy that Apple are the gatekeepers to all apps for the iPhone/Touch. What if they don't like your app?
I think his complaint is more the lack of open source code on iTAS as you can't install an app from the iTAS and then alter it yourself. At the very least, you'dhave to download the source code from a 3rd-party site before editing it. I don't think he realized you can install apps via the SDK directly onto the devices.
I still not convinced that's true.
"During the beta iPhone SDK program, a limited number of developers will be accepted into Apple?s new iPhone Developer Program and offered the ability to get code onto iPhones for testing. The Standard Program costs $99 (US) per year and gives members an iPhone SDK and development tools; access to pre-release iPhone software; technical support; the ability to get code onto iPhones for testing; and distribution of applications via the new App Store. The Enterprise Program costs $299 (US) per year."
As stated, you don't have to use the iTAS to install an app on your device.
No, you have to distribute your app as source code, expect your customer to have XCode 3.1 and the SDK, an Intel Mac and possibly to have paid $99 themselves. Come on, that's not a valid alternative.
"During the beta iPhone SDK program, a limited number of developers will be accepted into Apple?s new iPhone Developer Program and offered the ability to get code onto iPhones for testing. The Standard Program costs $99 (US) per year and gives members an iPhone SDK and development tools; access to pre-release iPhone software; technical support; the ability to get code onto iPhones for testing; and distribution of applications via the new App Store. The Enterprise Program costs $299 (US) per year."
Ah, i see what you are saying, but I don't think that will be the case. From my testing, it appears that the limitation is the lack of the 2.0 software. Though, I suppose they could could put a marker in there to prevent normal 2.0 software for accepting apps. Though, I don't see how this would benefit Apple.
If I want to test out an app that uses the cell network I'll need to test it thoroughly on an iPhone. Also, I don't think Apple would care, if you offer an App for free they are doing the hosting, but if you offer it through 3rd-party sites as open source and require developers to use the SDK to install it that doesn't hurt Apple in any way. If the app is worthwhile it's bound to find itself to the iTAS for the general public and it promotes even more developers to DL the SDk and run Leopard (unless they find another method). It's a win-win for Apple.
No sign of Bluetooth in the SDK that I could find. I've helped develop the Wiimote (Bluetooth device) driver for the Mac and know where to find the Bluetooth framework; no Bluetooth framework mentioned in the iPhone SDK.
No sign of Bluetooth in the SDK that I could find. I've helped develop the Wiimote (Bluetooth device) driver for the Mac and know where to find the Bluetooth framework; no Bluetooth framework mentioned in the iPhone SDK.
- Jasen.
There goes my idea of turning the iphone or ipod touch into a Mark X medical tricorder.
Take a look at this youtube video for the idea. The little handheld hand scanner could have talked to the iphone/ipod touch through bluetooth.
This is where the logic eludes me. Can you talk about what some of the other motivations are? If they're to get one's name out there, certainly that has distinct personal and presumably future economic benefits. If $99 is too much for someone, that strongly suggests they aren't that committed.
Getting egoboos are certainly one motivation for contributing to open source projects. Another is simply to make cool stuff for yourself and others to use. Having source reduces the barriers to making cool stuff.
The other major motivation is a crusade against proprietary software. However, few zealots would touch a Mac or an iPhone. No GPL'd iPhone apps need apply.
The other major motivation is a crusade against proprietary software. However, few zealots would touch a Mac or an iPhone. No GPL'd iPhone apps need apply.
Some of us just like the Mac and Apple and want to give stuff away. It's not complicated or religious.
That's true, but I think those are just the breaks. If $99 isn't a piddling amount for someone, perhaps perhaps they have other things they should be doing with their time than sacrificing it to author free applications. Or perhaps they should charge $1. Or perhaps they should apply to the iFund.
If the choices are between a free-for-all of potential crap 'o rama, and separating the wheat from the chaff but losing a little wheat in the process, I know the choice that I prefer.
Well be more careful next time. I assumed you meant ALL and not SOME. The fact they sell more iPhones than SOME brand nobody has heard of or who aren't widely available in the USA isn't very "mind-bottling" at all.
It really isn't my job to be accountable for your desire to read what you wish into a sentence. What I wrote was clear and stands upon its own. Nice to see you are capable of taking responsibility for making a mistake in your reply.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
Pantech? Danger? Palm? HTC? Who?
Who is Danger? Indeed. Damn shame nobody ever bought one of those T-mobile Sidekicks. Same with those Treos.
HTC makes the private-label phones for T-mobile, among others.
In your quest to be dismissive and derisive you avoided the point, which is that Apple stepped into a market in which it had zero presence and leapfrogged companies with years of experience and deep contacts in the cellular industry.
If this was easy, we'd all be carrying Zunes and drinking Virgin cola.
There is no point in responding to the rest of your obfuscation, since you're convinced you know everything, and you desire to whine about trivial matters which apparently don't affect you directly--you seem to have appointed yourself the Defender of the Downtrodden Developer, whether or not he or she wants your services.
Sorry, but I am proud to say I have a life. Best of luck to you.
It really isn't my job to be accountable for your desire to read what you wish into a sentence. What I wrote was clear and stands upon its own.
It obviously wasn't. I presumed you meant ALL as that would have made the sentence make sense. SOME makes your whole argument nonsensical. Yeah, the iPhone sells more than SOME other phones. No shit Sherlock.
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Kaplan
In your quest to be dismissive and derisive you avoided the point, which is that Apple stepped into a market in which it had zero presence and leapfrogged companies with years of experience and deep contacts in the cellular industry.
If this was easy, we'd all be carrying Zunes and drinking Virgin cola.
Nice analogy. If I was to carry on with that, at this point Apple is the Microsoft Zune and Virgin cola. They've a nice enough product and they've leapfrogged past the Creative Zen and Panda Colas of the world. But they've got a long way to go before they beat Nokia.
I'm not sure they even want to though, in the same way they aren't out to beat Microsoft in market share. Apple like their niche generally, not the mass market, unless they happen upon a niche where the two collide such as the iPod. The iPhone however, isn't a mass market phone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Kaplan
There is no point in responding to the rest of your obfuscation, since you're convinced you know everything, and you desire to whine about trivial matters which apparently don't affect you directly--you seem to have appointed yourself the Defender of the Downtrodden Developer, whether or not he or she wants your services.
No, it's not just me that has concerns over the way Apple is operating the developer program and App Store for the iPhone.
Comments
Sourceforge.net and Google Code being but two of many.
They also provide free web space, database, subversion repository, bug trackers, forums and more for your project.
The problem with the iPhone is you can't install apps other than from Apple's app store or if you've compiled it yourself through XCode and installed it using your developer licence. That's not a major problem since at least Apple realise they need to 'sell' apps for free but it's a pity you've got to pay $99 to Apple to do so and you can't host it elsewhere.
It'll be broken in a matter of weeks though and there will be an installer that lets you install any app without going through Apple I reckon so not a problem really.
1) Some obscure stores or non-organized sytem for installing Mobile OS X apps would be fine for technical people but that isnt' good for the average person. These are the people is targeting. These people don't have jailbroken devices. The iTunes App Store is an easy, centalized way of finding any an d all apps that you may ever need. It's the only viable option for the average person.
2) Once 2.0 is available (assuming the SDK is still free and doesn't require an upgrade) you will be able to copy the app directly to your device for testing. THey showed it being done in the keynote.
3) I think there very well may be a hack to allow apps to be installed. I don't see why Apple woluld make it any more difficult except to limit unlockers. If it does happen, it won't be the most popular approach to get apps on the iPhone and only be used for apps that Apple disapproves of. Everything else will be gladly shuffled through the iTAS.
1) Some obscure stores or non-organized sytem for installing Mobile OS X apps would be fine for technical people but that isnt' good for the average person. These are the people is targeting. These people don't have jailbroken devices. The iTunes App Store is an easy, centalized way of finding any an d all apps that you may ever need. It's the only viable option for the average person.
We've coped fine with installing apps on Macs from multiple sotes. I don't think a single store from only Apple is really the ONLY viable option.
I imagine the Handango, MacUpdate and Versiontracker people are quite pissed off with the decision.
2) Once 2.0 is available (assuming the SDK is still free and doesn't require an upgrade) you will be able to copy the app directly to your device for testing. THey showed it being done in the keynote.
You still have to pay the $99 fee to test the app on your iPhone from what I gather, or $299 if you don't want the app to end up in the App Store and only used in house. I can't tell for sure though because Apple are only allowing US developers to download the SDK just now. They say it'll be available to non-US in a few months. Hmmm. That'll make you popular with the international community.
3) I think there very well may be a hack to allow apps to be installed. I don't see why Apple woluld make it any more difficult except to limit unlockers. If it does happen, it won't be the most popular approach to get apps on the iPhone and only be used for apps that Apple disapproves of. Everything else will be gladly shuffled through the iTAS.
We'll see. I still think they need to rethink access for open source projects. Perhaps if you're not an open source developer, you don't understand our motivations, which aren't always commercial.
You still have to pay the $99 fee to test the app on your iPhone from what I gather, or $299 if you don't want the app to end up in the App Store and only used in house. I can't tell for sure though because Apple are only allowing US developers to download the SDK just now. They say it'll be available to non-US in a few months. Hmmm. That'll make you popular with the international community.
So far eh SDK is free. If I had the beta version of 2.0 then I could export as many apps as I wish to my device for free. The $99 still refers to obtaining an electronic certificate to post apps.
PS: The iPhone SDk is on torrent sites.
We'll see. I still think they need to rethink access for open source projects. Perhaps if you're not an open source developer, you don't understand our motivations, which aren't always commercial.
As I stated, you can always post your code so others can build upon it and install it on to a device without posting to iTAS. All you need is the SDK and mOS X v2.0. It's in the keynote.
you don't understand our motivations, which aren't always commercial.
This is where the logic eludes me. Can you talk about what some of the other motivations are? If they're to get one's name out there, certainly that has distinct personal and presumably future economic benefits. If $99 is too much for someone, that strongly suggests they aren't that committed.
If it's a purely beneficence motivation, what's another $99 when presumably one has sacrificed far more than that in terms of labor hours?
I just find it hard to get around the fact that $99 is one piddling amount of money. Enough to keep idiots out, and yet still be virtually meaningless for everyone else.
This is where the logic eludes me. Can you talk about what some of the other motivations are? If they're to get one's name out there, certainly that has distinct personal and presumably future economic benefits. If $99 is too much for someone, that strongly suggests they aren't that committed.
If it's a purely beneficence motivation, what's another $99 when presumably one has sacrificed far more than that in terms of labor hours?
I just find it hard to get around the fact that $99 is one piddling amount of money. Enough to keep idiots out, and yet still be virtually meaningless for everyone else.
I think his complaint is more the lack of open source code on iTAS as you can't install an app from the iTAS and then alter it yourself. At the very least, you'd have to download the source code from a 3rd-party site before editing it. I don't think he realized you can install apps via the SDK directly onto the devices.
This is where the logic eludes me.
Yes, the logic of FOSS development often does elude people. Sometimes there is no logic. Not everything has to be logical. Anarchy is as much a valid reason for doing it as the dollar.
The likelihood of someone spontaneously releasing software for free is diminished by charging an entry fee.
How many of us use fink ?
How likely do you think that would be as widespread if each developer porting an app had to pay to release their code?
I also don't think it's healthy that Apple are the gatekeepers to all apps for the iPhone/Touch. What if they don't like your app?
I also don't think it's healthy that Apple are the gatekeepers to all apps for the iPhone/Touch. What if they don't like your app?
As stated, you don't have to use the iTAS to install an app on your device.
I think his complaint is more the lack of open source code on iTAS as you can't install an app from the iTAS and then alter it yourself. At the very least, you'dhave to download the source code from a 3rd-party site before editing it. I don't think he realized you can install apps via the SDK directly onto the devices.
I still not convinced that's true.
"During the beta iPhone SDK program, a limited number of developers will be accepted into Apple?s new iPhone Developer Program and offered the ability to get code onto iPhones for testing. The Standard Program costs $99 (US) per year and gives members an iPhone SDK and development tools; access to pre-release iPhone software; technical support; the ability to get code onto iPhones for testing; and distribution of applications via the new App Store. The Enterprise Program costs $299 (US) per year."
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2008/03/06iphone.html
As stated, you don't have to use the iTAS to install an app on your device.
No, you have to distribute your app as source code, expect your customer to have XCode 3.1 and the SDK, an Intel Mac and possibly to have paid $99 themselves. Come on, that's not a valid alternative.
I still not convinced that's true.
"During the beta iPhone SDK program, a limited number of developers will be accepted into Apple?s new iPhone Developer Program and offered the ability to get code onto iPhones for testing. The Standard Program costs $99 (US) per year and gives members an iPhone SDK and development tools; access to pre-release iPhone software; technical support; the ability to get code onto iPhones for testing; and distribution of applications via the new App Store. The Enterprise Program costs $299 (US) per year."
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2008/03/06iphone.html
Ah, i see what you are saying, but I don't think that will be the case. From my testing, it appears that the limitation is the lack of the 2.0 software. Though, I suppose they could could put a marker in there to prevent normal 2.0 software for accepting apps. Though, I don't see how this would benefit Apple.
If I want to test out an app that uses the cell network I'll need to test it thoroughly on an iPhone. Also, I don't think Apple would care, if you offer an App for free they are doing the hosting, but if you offer it through 3rd-party sites as open source and require developers to use the SDK to install it that doesn't hurt Apple in any way. If the app is worthwhile it's bound to find itself to the iTAS for the general public and it promotes even more developers to DL the SDk and run Leopard (unless they find another method). It's a win-win for Apple.
No sign of Bluetooth in the SDK that I could find. I've helped develop the Wiimote (Bluetooth device) driver for the Mac and know where to find the Bluetooth framework; no Bluetooth framework mentioned in the iPhone SDK.
- Jasen.
What???? No!! Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!
No sign of Bluetooth in the SDK that I could find. I've helped develop the Wiimote (Bluetooth device) driver for the Mac and know where to find the Bluetooth framework; no Bluetooth framework mentioned in the iPhone SDK.
- Jasen.
There goes my idea of turning the iphone or ipod touch into a Mark X medical tricorder.
Take a look at this youtube video for the idea. The little handheld hand scanner could have talked to the iphone/ipod touch through bluetooth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPkn_fyVXps
This is where the logic eludes me. Can you talk about what some of the other motivations are? If they're to get one's name out there, certainly that has distinct personal and presumably future economic benefits. If $99 is too much for someone, that strongly suggests they aren't that committed.
Getting egoboos are certainly one motivation for contributing to open source projects. Another is simply to make cool stuff for yourself and others to use. Having source reduces the barriers to making cool stuff.
The other major motivation is a crusade against proprietary software. However, few zealots would touch a Mac or an iPhone. No GPL'd iPhone apps need apply.
The other major motivation is a crusade against proprietary software. However, few zealots would touch a Mac or an iPhone. No GPL'd iPhone apps need apply.
Some of us just like the Mac and Apple and want to give stuff away. It's not complicated or religious.
It just seems like all those motivations, if they truly are someone's motivation, are easily woth such a pidling amount of money.
$99 isn't piddling to everybody.
$99 isn't piddling to everybody.
That's true, but I think those are just the breaks. If $99 isn't a piddling amount for someone, perhaps perhaps they have other things they should be doing with their time than sacrificing it to author free applications. Or perhaps they should charge $1. Or perhaps they should apply to the iFund.
If the choices are between a free-for-all of potential crap 'o rama, and separating the wheat from the chaff but losing a little wheat in the process, I know the choice that I prefer.
Some of us just like the Mac and Apple and want to give stuff away. It's not complicated or religious.
Well, then you fit in the first category don't you? Not everyone in the FOSS world is laid back.
Well be more careful next time. I assumed you meant ALL and not SOME. The fact they sell more iPhones than SOME brand nobody has heard of or who aren't widely available in the USA isn't very "mind-bottling" at all.
It really isn't my job to be accountable for your desire to read what you wish into a sentence. What I wrote was clear and stands upon its own. Nice to see you are capable of taking responsibility for making a mistake in your reply.
Pantech? Danger? Palm? HTC? Who?
Who is Danger? Indeed. Damn shame nobody ever bought one of those T-mobile Sidekicks. Same with those Treos.
HTC makes the private-label phones for T-mobile, among others.
In your quest to be dismissive and derisive you avoided the point, which is that Apple stepped into a market in which it had zero presence and leapfrogged companies with years of experience and deep contacts in the cellular industry.
If this was easy, we'd all be carrying Zunes and drinking Virgin cola.
There is no point in responding to the rest of your obfuscation, since you're convinced you know everything, and you desire to whine about trivial matters which apparently don't affect you directly--you seem to have appointed yourself the Defender of the Downtrodden Developer, whether or not he or she wants your services.
Sorry, but I am proud to say I have a life. Best of luck to you.
It really isn't my job to be accountable for your desire to read what you wish into a sentence. What I wrote was clear and stands upon its own.
It obviously wasn't. I presumed you meant ALL as that would have made the sentence make sense. SOME makes your whole argument nonsensical. Yeah, the iPhone sells more than SOME other phones. No shit Sherlock.
In your quest to be dismissive and derisive you avoided the point, which is that Apple stepped into a market in which it had zero presence and leapfrogged companies with years of experience and deep contacts in the cellular industry.
If this was easy, we'd all be carrying Zunes and drinking Virgin cola.
Nice analogy. If I was to carry on with that, at this point Apple is the Microsoft Zune and Virgin cola. They've a nice enough product and they've leapfrogged past the Creative Zen and Panda Colas of the world. But they've got a long way to go before they beat Nokia.
I'm not sure they even want to though, in the same way they aren't out to beat Microsoft in market share. Apple like their niche generally, not the mass market, unless they happen upon a niche where the two collide such as the iPod. The iPhone however, isn't a mass market phone.
There is no point in responding to the rest of your obfuscation, since you're convinced you know everything, and you desire to whine about trivial matters which apparently don't affect you directly--you seem to have appointed yourself the Defender of the Downtrodden Developer, whether or not he or she wants your services.
No, it's not just me that has concerns over the way Apple is operating the developer program and App Store for the iPhone.
Try Rogue Amoeba...
http://www.rogueamoeba.com/utm/2008/...dk-bug-filing/
Try Rob Griffiths...
http://www.macworld.com/article/1324...ackground.html
Try Fraser Speirs...
http://speirs.org/2008/03/10/bampot-...exander-wolfe/
Sorry, but I am proud to say I have a life. Best of luck to you.
Though not a very nice one it seems if you avoid the subject and insult people instead.