If they are going to charge, I hope they also give a free demo version, like the Trism game will. The price points will be interesting, is an iPhone app worth a few grotes like a mobile phone app or game, or do they charge more because its a mobile computer platform?
If they are going to charge, I hope they also give a free demo version, like the Trism game will. The price points will be interesting, is an iPhone app worth a few grotes like a mobile phone app or game, or do they charge more because its a mobile computer platform?
If you want to give away your software for free, you don't have to do it through the App Store either.
Sounds reasonable as well, but who are WE to say? If someone does not want to charge then they should not be forced to or coerced to. If Apple does not want to host free apps this is their right to do so as well.
iTunes, Adium, Perian, Colloquy, TextWrangler, Transmission, Firefox, Camino, Opera, Flock, The Unarchiver, Skype, HandBrake, along with hundreds of others.
-Owl
NONE of the above are 'free'.
The cost to the user is simply hidden and supplied by other methods (advertising, subscription, or Mom & Dad's largess.)
Sounds reasonable as well, but who are WE to say? If someone does not want to charge then they should not be forced to or coerced to. If Apple does not want to host free apps this is their right to do so as well.
Apple could be scared at the sheer quantity of apps they would need to "vet" before they can offer it to consumers.
I think Steve spoke in haste and now they are looking at the enormous costs involved... not just hosting costs!
I can understand that. I'm just looking at the bad mouthing of free apps. If I was Apple, I wouldn't want to host gazillions of free apps either. I understand that they are a business in the business of making money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
Not true. There are very useful free and paid apps. But Apple has to make a business decision.
I am the first to admit it puts pressure on people writing paid apps, and this is half the point. Apple is hoping for this. Start out free and it means the chargers have to work harder for it. Push the free ones into low level charging, and they will get money to increase features and increase charges.
if you can buy a free or a not so free one, you choose.
I am the first to admit it puts pressure on people writing paid apps, and this is half the point. Apple is hoping for this. Start out free and it means the chargers have to work harder for it. Push the free ones into low level charging, and they will get money to increase features and increase charges.
if you can buy a free or a not so free one, you choose.
"lite" - that's so WINDOWS-crappy. Ever bought a Dell or HP - stuffed to the brim with such junk.
Let's not go down that road!
The difference is you get to choose the apps from the App Store instead of getting them preloaded. Think of Apple's Dashboard webpage. There are thousands of widgets to search through but are in no obligation download them. Even if you did install too many you can bet it'll be much easier to remove.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbradley67
What's a good free app? the AIM client?
The problem with 3rd-party IM clients is that per the rules of the SDK they will not run in the background. It is for this reason that I except to see Mobile iChat on OS X iPhone come v2.0. I also except Apple to add MSN as shown in a recent UI patent, but more for the fact that MS Messenger is the most common IM protocol in pretty much every country that the iPhone will be sold, except for the US.
I WISH I COULD FIND DEVELOPERS LIKE YOU TO WORK FOR FREE, ARE YOU LIVING @ HOME @ 30 SOMETHING ON YOUR PARENTS DIME?
SOFTWARE/APPS COME WITH A PRICE, EITHER ON YOUR END OR ON THE CONSUMER.
DON'T SELL YOURSELF SHORT JUST TO PROVE A POINT.
YOUR HURTING THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE.
UNLESS THE APPS YOU DEVELOP ARE GARBAGE TO BEGIN WITH!
Aside from the infantile ALL CAPS reply, the content of this post (as well as many others here) angers me no end.
I can understand financially what Apple's motivations are here, but for a developer, free apps and altruistic intent are both very good things. It's the developers choice anyway.
I do think that people (like you!) that are trying to make out like being fair or giving away something for free is actively *bad* or "destructive to the community" are going waay over the top. The suggestion by someone above that Apple should severely limit the number of free apps someone can offer is totally fascist IMO.
People actually think that Apple should only "let you" give something away if you perform your good Capitalist duty first???? WTF?
It's all the "developers" (and I use that term loosely) that rip off the Tetris code and try to sell it in a hundred badly coded variations that are "destructive to the community." It's the "developers" that make a stupid theme for the OS and think that I am going to pay 20 bucks to use it that are "the problem." It's the disdain these types of "developers" have for their customers and their attitude of entitlement that poison the developer community.
I saw this with Palm OS and on Windows Mobile, both of which I used for many years and bought lots of apps. Most applications were cheesy poorly done rip-offs posted at outrageous prices for what they were. Many were hardly "applications" at all, more like a UI wrapper on an already existent system function.
We know the platform will likely be a success with an addressable market in the tens of millions at the very least (and that's just to start with). Apple should be advising the developers to control their greed a little bit and think of how much money they will make even at $.99 an app, not encouraging higher prices.
LMAO! That's just funny. I'd rather provide something people want and can use and also get paid for it. It's kinda like working your butt off to get on "American Idol", then quitting before the final round (I don't watch American Idol, so pardon the example).
Well, that's certainly well and good, and I would do the same, but I also wouldn't knock dude for wanting to give it away. Nikola Tesla's primary motivating factor for a lot of his innovative work was to one day provide free electricity for the entire world.
Until guys like Westinghouse started f--king him, that is....
I can understand that. I'm just looking at the bad mouthing of free apps. If I was Apple, I wouldn't want to host gazillions of free apps either. I understand that they are a business in the business of making money.
Every app has to pass Apple's inspection also! It will become impossible for them to review every app and guarantee it won't brick iPhones from here to Mongolia.
I thought that the drug dealer model was that the first one is free, any more is going to cost you.
Other than the part about free apps, competing against different products at different price points and different feature lists is standard capitalism. And that's different from the drug dealer model.
Comments
This is crazy....LET THE APPS BE FREE!!
Communist!
If they are going to charge, I hope they also give a free demo version, like the Trism game will. The price points will be interesting, is an iPhone app worth a few grotes like a mobile phone app or game, or do they charge more because its a mobile computer platform?
WTH is a grote?
If you want to give away your software for free, you don't have to do it through the App Store either.
I thought Apple wasn't going to allow software installations except through their app store.
If you want to give away your software for free, you don't have to do it through the App Store either.
Sounds reasonable as well, but who are WE to say? If someone does not want to charge then they should not be forced to or coerced to. If Apple does not want to host free apps this is their right to do so as well.
I thought Apple wasn't going to allow software installations except through their app store.
You are aware of the whole "jailbreak" thing, right?
iTunes, Adium, Perian, Colloquy, TextWrangler, Transmission, Firefox, Camino, Opera, Flock, The Unarchiver, Skype, HandBrake, along with hundreds of others.
-Owl
NONE of the above are 'free'.
The cost to the user is simply hidden and supplied by other methods (advertising, subscription, or Mom & Dad's largess.)
E finita la cuccagna
TINSTAAFL
Sounds reasonable as well, but who are WE to say? If someone does not want to charge then they should not be forced to or coerced to. If Apple does not want to host free apps this is their right to do so as well.
Apple could be scared at the sheer quantity of apps they would need to "vet" before they can offer it to consumers.
I think Steve spoke in haste and now they are looking at the enormous costs involved... not just hosting costs!
TCPMP
NONE of the above are 'free'.
The cost to the user is simply hidden and supplied by other methods (advertising, subscription, or Mom & Dad's largess.)
E finita la cuccagna
TINSTAAFL
LOL, so Apple says to charge, now most people here think free apps are useless. WTF, get a brain of your own. Dolts!
Not true. There are very useful free and paid apps. But Apple has to make a business decision.
Not true. There are very useful free and paid apps. But Apple has to make a business decision.
if you can buy a free or a not so free one, you choose.
I am the first to admit it puts pressure on people writing paid apps, and this is half the point. Apple is hoping for this. Start out free and it means the chargers have to work harder for it. Push the free ones into low level charging, and they will get money to increase features and increase charges.
if you can buy a free or a not so free one, you choose.
It's the 'drug dealer' model of distribution.
"lite" - that's so WINDOWS-crappy. Ever bought a Dell or HP - stuffed to the brim with such junk.
Let's not go down that road!
The difference is you get to choose the apps from the App Store instead of getting them preloaded. Think of Apple's Dashboard webpage. There are thousands of widgets to search through but are in no obligation download them. Even if you did install too many you can bet it'll be much easier to remove.
What's a good free app? the AIM client?
The problem with 3rd-party IM clients is that per the rules of the SDK they will not run in the background. It is for this reason that I except to see Mobile iChat on OS X iPhone come v2.0. I also except Apple to add MSN as shown in a recent UI patent, but more for the fact that MS Messenger is the most common IM protocol in pretty much every country that the iPhone will be sold, except for the US.
I WISH I COULD FIND DEVELOPERS LIKE YOU TO WORK FOR FREE, ARE YOU LIVING @ HOME @ 30 SOMETHING ON YOUR PARENTS DIME?
SOFTWARE/APPS COME WITH A PRICE, EITHER ON YOUR END OR ON THE CONSUMER.
DON'T SELL YOURSELF SHORT JUST TO PROVE A POINT.
YOUR HURTING THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE.
UNLESS THE APPS YOU DEVELOP ARE GARBAGE TO BEGIN WITH!
Aside from the infantile ALL CAPS reply, the content of this post (as well as many others here) angers me no end.
I can understand financially what Apple's motivations are here, but for a developer, free apps and altruistic intent are both very good things. It's the developers choice anyway.
I do think that people (like you!) that are trying to make out like being fair or giving away something for free is actively *bad* or "destructive to the community" are going waay over the top. The suggestion by someone above that Apple should severely limit the number of free apps someone can offer is totally fascist IMO.
People actually think that Apple should only "let you" give something away if you perform your good Capitalist duty first???? WTF?
It's all the "developers" (and I use that term loosely) that rip off the Tetris code and try to sell it in a hundred badly coded variations that are "destructive to the community." It's the "developers" that make a stupid theme for the OS and think that I am going to pay 20 bucks to use it that are "the problem." It's the disdain these types of "developers" have for their customers and their attitude of entitlement that poison the developer community.
I saw this with Palm OS and on Windows Mobile, both of which I used for many years and bought lots of apps. Most applications were cheesy poorly done rip-offs posted at outrageous prices for what they were. Many were hardly "applications" at all, more like a UI wrapper on an already existent system function.
We know the platform will likely be a success with an addressable market in the tens of millions at the very least (and that's just to start with). Apple should be advising the developers to control their greed a little bit and think of how much money they will make even at $.99 an app, not encouraging higher prices.
LMAO! That's just funny. I'd rather provide something people want and can use and also get paid for it. It's kinda like working your butt off to get on "American Idol", then quitting before the final round (I don't watch American Idol, so pardon the example).
Well, that's certainly well and good, and I would do the same, but I also wouldn't knock dude for wanting to give it away. Nikola Tesla's primary motivating factor for a lot of his innovative work was to one day provide free electricity for the entire world.
Until guys like Westinghouse started f--king him, that is....
I can understand that. I'm just looking at the bad mouthing of free apps. If I was Apple, I wouldn't want to host gazillions of free apps either. I understand that they are a business in the business of making money.
Every app has to pass Apple's inspection also! It will become impossible for them to review every app and guarantee it won't brick iPhones from here to Mongolia.
It's the 'drug dealer' model of distribution.
I thought that the drug dealer model was that the first one is free, any more is going to cost you.
Other than the part about free apps, competing against different products at different price points and different feature lists is standard capitalism. And that's different from the drug dealer model.
It's the 'drug dealer' model of distribution.
In many ways Apple is an enabler.