Owning a couple of online stores myself I find 30% is a steal. Google alone can consume over 50% of your profits, not to mention maintaining the website, PayPal and bank accounts.
Owning a couple of online stores myself I find 30% is a steal. Google alone can consume over 50% of your profits, not to mention maintaining the website, PayPal and bank accounts.
So Apple is being a good Apple with this deal.
How does Google take that much?
It would be nice if you could break it down more specifically. Even though others charge more, it's stated often among all forums that Apple is raping the developers. A first person example would be great for future reference.
It would be nice if you could break it down more specifically. Even though others charge more, it's stated often among all forums that Apple is raping the developers. A first person example would be great for future reference.
Advertising. Probably the best thing about the Apple store is a huge collection of existing customers for your Apps. Without customers you don't have a business.
First, turn of the caps, it makes you look like a complete jackass. Secondly, do you have any concept of the open source community and what has been contributed from programmers for free for decades. You are on an Apple fan website, so I assume you use Mac OSX, the core and foundation of which is all open source, CREATED FOR FREE BY PASSIONATE DEVELOPERS! I'm sure you like to browse the web, right??? Well 60% of the web runs on Linux (free) and Apache web server (free).
Most of those use some form of programming language, right. PHP (free), Ruby (free), Python (free), Perl (free), etc.
I'm sure they have a database for website/web app, right. MySql(free), PostgreSql (free), SqlLite(free), etc
Debugging tolls, development environments, etc. Many are free.
Web frameworks? mostly all free.
Most popular blogging software? Free
Web browsers like Safari/Webkit (free) or Firefox (free) or Opera (free)? What about browser extensions? Free.
What do your developer program with? What development environment do they use? What tools and utilities do they use? I GUARANTEE some of them are free.
Even major commercial applications use some form of free or open source software. There are countless low-level software libraries and utilities that used throughout the commercial software world like.
In academic scientific fields, free and open source software dominates the entire landscape. Chemistry, Biology, Molecular Biology, Computational Biology, Physics, Astronomy, Mathematics, Geology, Paleontology, etc etc etc. And not only in science, but ever other academic discipline sees some use out of free software.
I haven't even mentioned the *HUGE* variety of useful, polished, and FREE open source and freeware applications available for end users for OSX, Windows, and Linux.
The following is not a pasted list. I actually went through them and found just the ones I am familar with and have used before:
I was already under the assumption that most of the apps would cost money anyways...
What's a good free app? the AIM client?
Games and everything will of course cost money.
I would be shocked if a high quantity of solid apps come out as free.
This is not a good sign. There are plenty of good free apps. Have a look at LyX for example. One can only hope that the Mac doesn't return to the days of the early 90's...
A trend towards taking Open Source sw and touching it up a bit and charging would not be good.
The story here is that Apple made a big deal of all the free apps they'd be hosting; the rumor of their encouraging charging is contradictory to the hype. Maybe the rumor isn't even true, but that's hardly the point. It's just a rumor. Given that, it's odd to see so many people saying they don't care. It's equally odd to see that people who do care (reasonably so, I think) are being flamed.
Who the hell knows what hosting all those programs costs Apple? I'm inclined to think they'll cash-in either way: if they encourage pricing or if they don't. They would certainly garner more good will if they took the latter course. When has Apple ever been concerned about that, however? I'm not saying they have to be concerned. It's just interesting that they're not. And it's interesting that so many people are seemingly oblivious or apologetic of this.
All discussion of Apple being a for-profit company are irrelevant. That's a given. The for-profit company hyped free apps. People are supposed to believe that Apple just suddenly reevaluated its business model--that Apple just realized free hosting could cost them a lot of money? No. Their coaxing for fees is a back-door strategy for more.
On a tangent, relating to OS X and BSD, there are people in the open source community who resent what Apple has done. A great many in fact. These people are whack-jobs like Stallman who discourage profit from open source on principle. What is this principle? Who knows? They hate BSD because of what it offers in terms of proprietary rights. They even want to strip companies like Tivo of their earning power from wholly open sources like Linux. (Here, it's worth noting that Torvalds is eminently more reasonable and that he's not concerned with whether or not others profit from open source software. Personally, I like people who aren't threatened by success.)
"Do you realize that 99% of those free software have a paid option, for better support or more features?"
Perhaps for support. I highly doubt the 99% figure for more features. There are many quality applications that are free. There is nothing wrong in charging for work based on open source sw, although I do think a good supply of free sw will only help the hardware platform.
On a (un)related note, I am a bit uneasy about our information exchange medium being based on profit based models. You don't need to pay someone to translate a typical conversation. I do think there is something unpleasant about charging for information and yet we all do it.
I'm wondering if Apple is missing the big picture here.
Having a large library of apps, especially free ones, keeps people coming to look at the store. More exposure for everything they DO sell.
I'm thinking about how it works with iTunes. I download 20+ podcasts a week. It keeps me coming back to the iTunes store regularly, occasionally actually buying something I see as well. If I had not been there specifically for the free content in the first place, I would never have seen the items I did end up buying.
I've always planned to charge a little bit for the casual games I'm developing under the Cocoa Touch Games moniker, but it would sure as hell help if I knew more than one other Canadian who had his bloody certification, first!
Come on Apple, I have my $99 in hand, let's get going on the certifications, shall we?
PS. I do expect this to change come Monday, very rapidly.
Software takes a lot of time and effort, and if you just give it away, you have no real motivation to keep innovating it, or maybe take advantage of new features in new iphone releases.
A little bit of money makes for some great motivation to make great stuff... free is great, but you should not fail to consider all options when you have a software product that you want to share.
Software takes a lot of time and effort, and if you just give it away, you have no real motivation to keep innovating it, or maybe take advantage of new features in new iphone releases.
The usual motivation for sharing your code is so that other developers contribute to your code improving it and adding features. Usually other developers do not do that if you're selling the product, without getting some payback themselves for their work.
So I can see why Apple charging will have the exact opposite effect on some products and preclude entry for some open source projects entirely. It was already on shaky ground with the $99 fee for joining the app store.
I just hope someone gets around the app store requirement (yes I know about jailbreaking but that seems to have been causing bricking on updates in the past) in a way that allows other stores and free distribution. Having Apple as the gatekeeper and 'suggesting' terms might be ok for the majority but there's plenty of people uneasy with that.
IMO, this move by Apple makes a great deal of sense. Furthermore, it doesn't stop a developer from pushing a "lite", free version of an app, and one where one pays to obtain a version with features mainstream users might not be inclined to pay for.
I think what Apple is trying to avoid is what I'm seeing in the video production business. If you give away stuff for free, pretty soon it becomes impossible for anyone to make coin, period. You then face an uphill battle convincing customers that your labor is worth something, and are left with no choice but to charge fat fees for "consulting" and the like. Not the greatest of business models, I would suggest.
As for software I use, I don't have a problem with using shareware or open source software. For instance, Camino is my web browser of choice. However, because it's free, I don't think I'm in the right to beat up the development team over their feature choices. (Indeed, they would most likely tell me to get off my a$$, learn Objective-C, and help them...) OTOH, if indeed I'm paying something, anything for an app, I think that gives me the right to (politely) take issue with that app when it doesn't work as advertised.
For reference, I pulled out my decrepit Treo 680 and went to its online store. It's like watching old people fuck.
I laughed so hard that milk came out my nose!
QUOTE=macinthe408;1260870]Apple just friggin' gets it, and not just gimmicky hardware, where others seem to have their buck stop at. They make sure every last detail is awesome. Squared.[/QUOTE]
Agreed! Apple have proved that attention to detail is what people really want, not vague functionality in a cheap plastic enclosure.
Software takes a lot of time and effort, and if you just give it away, you have no real motivation to keep innovating it, or maybe take advantage of new features in new iphone releases.
A little bit of money makes for some great motivation to make great stuff... free is great, but you should not fail to consider all options when you have a software product that you want to share.
A lot of things take time and effort. That doesn't mean financial return is the only motivation. True artists typically do not operate that way.
Apple are not forcing anyone to charge for an application, if you want it to be free then it can be free. I suggest what they are doing is pointing out the benefits from charging at least something for an application, which they have every right to do as it is there service being used after all.
Really, what are you majors? "Superstitious Cults of the Last 2000 Years" and "Indoctronation Jesus Style"?
This explains why you're offended by pretty much every reply to your posts.
Really? I though it was more due to the fact that someone was:
1) SHOUTING AT HIM. (undeniably rude regardless of the content of the message)
2) Making needless personal shots (still lives with parents; leeching off them financially - both of which were rationally refuted).
Now, people are attempting to bait him to lash out again by diverting comeletely off-topic and intentionally dropping blatant anti-religious comments, and yet he hasn't felt compelled to address any of that in this thread. Insecure much?
Oh how I enjoy the breath of free air (be it fresh or polluted), how I enjoy waking up to the free sound of birds sining outside my window every morning, and how I enjoy free chatting to some wise old man at the park at weekends.
Everything in life IS free, it only becomes "not free" when man puts a price tag on it.
Comments
So Apple is being a good Apple with this deal.
Owning a couple of online stores myself I find 30% is a steal. Google alone can consume over 50% of your profits, not to mention maintaining the website, PayPal and bank accounts.
So Apple is being a good Apple with this deal.
How does Google take that much?
It would be nice if you could break it down more specifically. Even though others charge more, it's stated often among all forums that Apple is raping the developers. A first person example would be great for future reference.
How does Google take that much?
It would be nice if you could break it down more specifically. Even though others charge more, it's stated often among all forums that Apple is raping the developers. A first person example would be great for future reference.
Advertising. Probably the best thing about the Apple store is a huge collection of existing customers for your Apps. Without customers you don't have a business.
First, turn of the caps, it makes you look like a complete jackass. Secondly, do you have any concept of the open source community and what has been contributed from programmers for free for decades. You are on an Apple fan website, so I assume you use Mac OSX, the core and foundation of which is all open source, CREATED FOR FREE BY PASSIONATE DEVELOPERS! I'm sure you like to browse the web, right??? Well 60% of the web runs on Linux (free) and Apache web server (free).
Most of those use some form of programming language, right. PHP (free), Ruby (free), Python (free), Perl (free), etc.
I'm sure they have a database for website/web app, right. MySql(free), PostgreSql (free), SqlLite(free), etc
Debugging tolls, development environments, etc. Many are free.
Web frameworks? mostly all free.
Most popular blogging software? Free
Web browsers like Safari/Webkit (free) or Firefox (free) or Opera (free)? What about browser extensions? Free.
What do your developer program with? What development environment do they use? What tools and utilities do they use? I GUARANTEE some of them are free.
Even major commercial applications use some form of free or open source software. There are countless low-level software libraries and utilities that used throughout the commercial software world like.
In academic scientific fields, free and open source software dominates the entire landscape. Chemistry, Biology, Molecular Biology, Computational Biology, Physics, Astronomy, Mathematics, Geology, Paleontology, etc etc etc. And not only in science, but ever other academic discipline sees some use out of free software.
I haven't even mentioned the *HUGE* variety of useful, polished, and FREE open source and freeware applications available for end users for OSX, Windows, and Linux.
The following is not a pasted list. I actually went through them and found just the ones I am familar with and have used before:
Adium, AVG anti-virus, AviSynth, Cinelerra, VirtualDub, ClamWin anti-virus, 7Zip, AbiWord, Acid Express, Firefox, Google Earth, Adaware, Anim8or, Apache Web Server, Apache Tomcat, Aptana, Audacity, Avast, Azureus, Blender 3-D, Cinepaint, Cygwin, Cyberduck, DVDFlick, DVDShrink, Democracy Player, Eclipse, Ethereal, FileZilla, Filseclab, Flac, Frostwire, Fluidsynth, Foxit, Gaim, Gimpshop, Google Picasa, Groovy, Handbrake, Infrarecorder, Inkscape, Irfanview, Joost, Juice, Kerio Firewall, Komodo Edit, K3D, MacTheRipper, Netstumbler, Ogg Vorbis, Open SSH, OpenOffice.org, Opera, Outpost, PDF Creator, Paint.Net, Thunderbird, TrueCrypt, Pidgin, Pixia, Pixen, Putty, Quasar, RSSBandit, Scribus, Selenium, SharpDevelop, Sketch It Up, Skype, Songbird, Spybot, Spyware Blaster, Trillian, UltraVNC, VirtualBox, VirtualWin, VNC Player, WinSCP, XAMPP, PovRay..........
Bottom line.. Free and open source software has made a huge impact on modern software and computing in general, and is an excellent movement to join.
Do you realize that 99% of those free software have a paid option, for better support or more features?
Exactly what Apple is trying to get the developers to do, according to this article.
I was already under the assumption that most of the apps would cost money anyways...
What's a good free app? the AIM client?
Games and everything will of course cost money.
I would be shocked if a high quantity of solid apps come out as free.
This is not a good sign. There are plenty of good free apps. Have a look at LyX for example. One can only hope that the Mac doesn't return to the days of the early 90's...
A trend towards taking Open Source sw and touching it up a bit and charging would not be good.
philip
Who the hell knows what hosting all those programs costs Apple? I'm inclined to think they'll cash-in either way: if they encourage pricing or if they don't. They would certainly garner more good will if they took the latter course. When has Apple ever been concerned about that, however? I'm not saying they have to be concerned. It's just interesting that they're not. And it's interesting that so many people are seemingly oblivious or apologetic of this.
All discussion of Apple being a for-profit company are irrelevant. That's a given. The for-profit company hyped free apps. People are supposed to believe that Apple just suddenly reevaluated its business model--that Apple just realized free hosting could cost them a lot of money? No. Their coaxing for fees is a back-door strategy for more.
On a tangent, relating to OS X and BSD, there are people in the open source community who resent what Apple has done. A great many in fact. These people are whack-jobs like Stallman who discourage profit from open source on principle. What is this principle? Who knows? They hate BSD because of what it offers in terms of proprietary rights. They even want to strip companies like Tivo of their earning power from wholly open sources like Linux. (Here, it's worth noting that Torvalds is eminently more reasonable and that he's not concerned with whether or not others profit from open source software. Personally, I like people who aren't threatened by success.)
Perhaps for support. I highly doubt the 99% figure for more features. There are many quality applications that are free. There is nothing wrong in charging for work based on open source sw, although I do think a good supply of free sw will only help the hardware platform.
On a (un)related note, I am a bit uneasy about our information exchange medium being based on profit based models. You don't need to pay someone to translate a typical conversation. I do think there is something unpleasant about charging for information and yet we all do it.
philip
No. Their coaxing for fees is a back-door strategy for more.
I don't think it is Apple who will set the price for the apps, it is more likely that's the prerogative of the developers.
Having a large library of apps, especially free ones, keeps people coming to look at the store. More exposure for everything they DO sell.
I'm thinking about how it works with iTunes. I download 20+ podcasts a week. It keeps me coming back to the iTunes store regularly, occasionally actually buying something I see as well. If I had not been there specifically for the free content in the first place, I would never have seen the items I did end up buying.
Come on Apple, I have my $99 in hand, let's get going on the certifications, shall we?
PS. I do expect this to change come Monday, very rapidly.
Software takes a lot of time and effort, and if you just give it away, you have no real motivation to keep innovating it, or maybe take advantage of new features in new iphone releases.
A little bit of money makes for some great motivation to make great stuff... free is great, but you should not fail to consider all options when you have a software product that you want to share.
Software takes a lot of time and effort, and if you just give it away, you have no real motivation to keep innovating it, or maybe take advantage of new features in new iphone releases.
The usual motivation for sharing your code is so that other developers contribute to your code improving it and adding features. Usually other developers do not do that if you're selling the product, without getting some payback themselves for their work.
So I can see why Apple charging will have the exact opposite effect on some products and preclude entry for some open source projects entirely. It was already on shaky ground with the $99 fee for joining the app store.
I just hope someone gets around the app store requirement (yes I know about jailbreaking but that seems to have been causing bricking on updates in the past) in a way that allows other stores and free distribution. Having Apple as the gatekeeper and 'suggesting' terms might be ok for the majority but there's plenty of people uneasy with that.
I think what Apple is trying to avoid is what I'm seeing in the video production business. If you give away stuff for free, pretty soon it becomes impossible for anyone to make coin, period. You then face an uphill battle convincing customers that your labor is worth something, and are left with no choice but to charge fat fees for "consulting" and the like. Not the greatest of business models, I would suggest.
As for software I use, I don't have a problem with using shareware or open source software. For instance, Camino is my web browser of choice. However, because it's free, I don't think I'm in the right to beat up the development team over their feature choices. (Indeed, they would most likely tell me to get off my a$$, learn Objective-C, and help them...) OTOH, if indeed I'm paying something, anything for an app, I think that gives me the right to (politely) take issue with that app when it doesn't work as advertised.
IMO, this move by Apple makes a great deal of sense.
Shut up!!
Indeed. He reformatted his iPhone for our sins. Now for some important philosophical questions:
- Would Jesus jailbreak his iPhone?
- What does Jesus listen to/watch on his phone?
- If Jesus has an iPhone, does the devil have a Nokia?
I'm open to an intense theological debate on these issues.
I don't think Jesus would need a mechanical device to communicate directly to you.
For reference, I pulled out my decrepit Treo 680 and went to its online store. It's like watching old people fuck.
I laughed so hard that milk came out my nose!
QUOTE=macinthe408;1260870]Apple just friggin' gets it, and not just gimmicky hardware, where others seem to have their buck stop at. They make sure every last detail is awesome. Squared.[/QUOTE]
Agreed! Apple have proved that attention to detail is what people really want, not vague functionality in a cheap plastic enclosure.
This sounds reasonable.
Software takes a lot of time and effort, and if you just give it away, you have no real motivation to keep innovating it, or maybe take advantage of new features in new iphone releases.
A little bit of money makes for some great motivation to make great stuff... free is great, but you should not fail to consider all options when you have a software product that you want to share.
A lot of things take time and effort. That doesn't mean financial return is the only motivation. True artists typically do not operate that way.
philip
Apple are not forcing anyone to charge for an application, if you want it to be free then it can be free. I suggest what they are doing is pointing out the benefits from charging at least something for an application, which they have every right to do as it is there service being used after all.
Get a grip!
Really, what are you majors? "Superstitious Cults of the Last 2000 Years" and "Indoctronation Jesus Style"?
This explains why you're offended by pretty much every reply to your posts.
Really? I though it was more due to the fact that someone was:
1) SHOUTING AT HIM. (undeniably rude regardless of the content of the message)
2) Making needless personal shots (still lives with parents; leeching off them financially - both of which were rationally refuted).
Now, people are attempting to bait him to lash out again by diverting comeletely off-topic and intentionally dropping blatant anti-religious comments, and yet he hasn't felt compelled to address any of that in this thread. Insecure much?
Oh how I enjoy the breath of free air (be it fresh or polluted), how I enjoy waking up to the free sound of birds sining outside my window every morning, and how I enjoy free chatting to some wise old man at the park at weekends.
Everything in life IS free, it only becomes "not free" when man puts a price tag on it.
Finally, someone with common sense.
philip