The HTC doesn't look like quality, no. But the Android concept is superior to Apples strategy. And I doubt Apple will continue to be hugley successful without changing it once Android has arrived and there are good handsets for it.
The only reason why Apple is currently succesful is because they stirred up the stale handset hardware and UI market. Once the others have caught up, Apple won't have a chance with their closed/controlled/NDAed market model.
I'm highly skeptical that this Android platform is going to be all rosy as some are painting it, but we shall see how successful it is, highly doubt it would be as successful as Apple's offering. From what they released yesterday, they have a long way to go.
The HTC doesn't look like quality, no. But the Android concept is superior to Apples strategy. And I doubt Apple will continue to be hugley successful without changing it once Android has arrived and there are good handsets for it.
The only reason why Apple is currently succesful is because they stirred up the stale handset hardware and UI market. Once the others have caught up, Apple won't have a chance with their closed/controlled/NDAed market model.
You are so wrong it's funny. The Android will validate Apple's strategy very quickly. The complete chaos that will ensue once this thing is on the market will be a sight to see. With no controls on who or how apps are developed the results will be a complete collapse of the model. The Android devices will be extremely crash prone because of conflicting code, something Apple is trying to control. No, you have the facts in reverse. Google will be forced to adopt the Apple model if it is to have any chance of surviving. And you can take that to the bank.
Others have said it before but it is worth re-stating. If App Store was simply A distribution point for iPhone/iPod touch apps, it would be one thing. But when App Store is THE sole distribution point for those apps, I would assert that the responsibility bar is higher for Apple not to F-CK its developers, or have a whiff of smelling like it is doing same to a sizable constituency of its base, as is the case here.
Perception is reality.
Apple develops hardware like iPhone and iPod Touch platforms and opens the app store allowing developers a brand new market they didn't have before.
Apple develops the SDK xCode tool set making it easier for developers.
Apple offers developers worldwide distribution and handles all sales expenses and effort for only a 30 percent cut.
iTunes software free for both Windows and Mac etc etc etc.
Look guys don't bite off the hand that feeds you. Think about what you'd have if Apple decided to really say f**k you and became a Sprint or Verizon.
All Apple did was to required that developer play by Apple's rules. That's not unreasonable or anti-competitive for what they give you.
I don't get it though. Why is Apple keeping people from developing for the iphone and ipod touch applications that would truly solidfiy the platform for the long term future?
Ask AT&T and the world carriers selling iPhone that want to make sure the OS X running on the iPhone doesn't have a means to hack their network and wreak havoc to hundreds of millions of customers and their private billing information.
as a shade-tree programmer, looking at cell platforms to toy with, this is a huge strike against Apple for me: I could spend months developing a great app just to be blocked from the marketplace because Apple decides to based on some mysterious standard? and hey, as if that werent enough of a reason, a java app will work on BB and android, Obj-c is iphone only...and frankly, xcode sucks: so why dev for the iphone again?
as a user of the iphone platform, this is frustrating, I want podcasting in the iphone, there is no acceptable excuse why it was left out, and blocking that app was unforgivable.
Apple is on the verge of "jumping the shark" they are treading on MS mid 90s territory here. ala killing netscape as it was a competitor to its own product.
Sign up, read the terms and re-read what you wrote. There never was a mystery unless you accept the fact that developers failed to "read" the terms and conditions of the SDK when they signed on.
They weren't blind-sided. And for their "confusion" they didn't contact Apple until they had written an application that if they had "read" the terms never would have been developed without first clarifying with Apple.
In short, they either blindly chose to ignore the terms or have intentionally preyed upon the ignorance of the non-developer community to create bad press for Apple and great press for Android.
Apple develops hardware like iPhone and iPod Touch platforms and opens the app store allowing developers a brand new market they didn't have before.
Apple develops the SDK xCode tool set making it easier for developers.
Apple offers developers worldwide distribution and handles all sales expenses and effort for only a 30 percent cut.
iTunes software free for both Windows and Mac etc etc etc.
Look guys don't bite off the hand that feeds you. Think about what you'd have if Apple decided to really say f**k you and became a Sprint or Verizon.
All Apple did was to required that developer play by Apple's rules. That's not unreasonable or anti-competitive for what they give you.
Like I said, perception is reality. The comparison to Sprint and Verizon doesn't work because part of what Apple needs to do to be successful with iPhone/iPod touch is to drive the best and brightest to build killer apps for the platform, whereas Sprint/Verizon are service providers loyal/dependent upon whatever device is most compelling to its audience. This is a platform play, something that becomes painfully clear when developers opt first to develop for another platform, as was the case when Windows became the platform of choice for developers, despite the Mac being arguably superior.
And worth noting, there was a point in time where Apple was in EXACTLY the same position. Heck, Microsoft was cow-towing to Apple because it was the most innovative platform at the time. Then they co-opted them, partnered better and built a bigger ecosystem.
My only point is that history is clear on this one. Good competitors will filter into the market, platform plays are all about securing the hearts and minds of developers (not the other way around), perception has a way of becoming reality, and the uproar by lots of usually Apple loving folks (myself included) is suggestive of more than "we're confused" or "get over it."
Consider building an application for the iPhone, that will stream NBC content for free.
Now, the content I'm going to stream is also available for sale on iTunes.
That content, from iTunes, provides a revenue stream to Apple and also to the actual owner of the content..... NBC.
Apple has an agreement with NBC over that content.
Apple also has an agreement with me as a developer.
These agreements are meant to keep us all protected and safe.
Now, YOU seem to want to spur "inovation" by allowing me to stream content owned by others for free, in the face of the litigation that it would cause to Apple.
Stealing other people's content and supplying it for free is not inovation.
It's stealing.
The podcast system described can download a lot more than just a podcast and doesn't deal with ownership issues.
NOTE: If you substitute iTunes and NBC above for an example that would be a company providing material via Amazon or some other outlet it doesn't change anything. Apple is not in the business of destroying intellectual property rights or copyright infringment.
If that's the inovation you're looking for, you won't find it here or on Android.
Yes yes use stupid easy examples and imply stuff I didn't say to support your view. Good job!
I want you to continue saying that the next time we find out of yet another useful application that was rejected after hard work by the developer and with no apparent reason.
You are so wrong it's funny. The Android will validate Apple's strategy very quickly. The complete chaos that will ensue once this thing is on the market will be a sight to see. With no controls on who or how apps are developed the results will be a complete collapse of the model. The Android devices will be extremely crash prone because of conflicting code, something Apple is trying to control. No, you have the facts in reverse. Google will be forced to adopt the Apple model if it is to have any chance of surviving. And you can take that to the bank.
Like I said, perception is reality. The comparison to Sprint and Verizon doesn't work because part of what Apple needs to do to be successful with iPhone/iPod touch is to drive the best and brightest to build killer apps for the platform, whereas Sprint/Verizon are service providers loyal/dependent upon whatever device is most compelling to its audience. This is a platform play, something that becomes painfully clear when developers opt first to develop for another platform, as was the case when Windows became the platform of choice for developers, despite the Mac being arguably superior.
And worth noting, there was a point in time where Apple was in EXACTLY the same position. Heck, Microsoft was cow-towing to Apple because it was the most innovative platform at the time. Then they co-opted them, partnered better and built a bigger ecosystem.
My only point is that history is clear on this one. Good competitors will filter into the market, platform plays are all about securing the hearts and minds of developers (not the other way around), perception has a way of becoming reality, and the uproar by lots of usually Apple loving folks (myself included) is suggestive of more than "we're confused" or "get over it."
My point was Apple owes us nothing but has given us everything we are arguing about. Apple probably doesn't want to compete with Windows platforms and surely doesn't NEED to. It's doing just fine with its niche. The telcos gave us sh*t until iPhone stole their thunder and forced them to make better interfaces. Apple's ITunes, iPods, Computers did the same for their markets, and and now Apple entering the mobile software Apps and mobile games market will do it for handhelds. We have all gained form Apple policies. They don't deserve this negativism.
Sorry, I didn't mean to come across as though I was making totally unsubstantiated assumptions. I was simply working from Steve Job's public references to the ad-hoc distribution method back at the SDK announcement event.
I am curious as to exactly how that distribution method, announced right out of Steve Jobs' lips, is intended to be applied. Or, as the case may be, whether Apple might have decided to retract that option without fanfare.
"The Apps Store is going to be the exclusive way to distribute your applications." 1:026:24 mark of the "Apple March 6 Event: iPhone Software Roadmap" podcast
Also, look at the "limitations" discussed at the 1:07:47 mark.
Then at the WWDC 2008 Keynote Address, Ad Hoc distribution was introduced that allows certified developers to distribute their apps to 100 registered iPhones at the 1:06:02 mark.
Note that both podcasts are available via the iTunes store.
"The Apps Store is going to be the exclusive way to distribute your applications." 1:026:24 mark of the "Apple March 6 Event: iPhone Software Roadmap" podcast
Also, look at the "limitations" discussed at the 1:07:47 mark.
Then at the WWDC 2008 Keynote Address, Ad Hoc distribution was introduced that allows certified developers to distribute their apps to 100 registered iPhones at the 1:06:02 mark.
Note that both podcasts are available via the iTunes store.
Ok, so which announcement is telling the truth?
Is the iTunes App Store the exclusive (ie. no alternatives exist) means of distributing the apps, like the 1st webcast says?
Or, are certified developers allowed to ad-hoc distribute their apps to 100 registered iPhones like the 2nd webcast (and Apple's own website) says?
Is the iTunes App Store the exclusive (ie. no alternatives exist) means of distributing the apps, like the 1st webcast says?
Or, are certified developers allowed to ad-hoc distribute their apps to 100 registered iPhones like the 2nd webcast (and Apple's own website) says?
Are you implying that one is a lie?
They both were telling the truth. The "exclusive" distribution was presented at the Apple March 6 Event: iPhone Software Roadmap keynote in March and the Ad-hoc distribution which is highly restricted was introduced 3 months later. Makes sense. Developers requested it and Apple complied.
And you would be the old-as-dirt, cynical curmudgeon?
Why does expecting to get paid for real work make him a curmudgeon? Kids without careers, cars, homes or families can give their work away. For them it's incidental, and makes them look cool to the other freeloaders.
They both were telling the truth. The "exclusive" distribution was presented at the Apple March 6 Event: iPhone Software Roadmap keynote in March and the Ad-hoc distribution which is highly restricted was introduced 3 months later. Makes sense. Developers requested it and Apple complied.
But you had previously stated:
Quote:
They signed an NDA that explicitly stated that they could not distribute any app they developed with the iPhone SDK outside the Apple iTunes store
Taken at face value, that statement appears to be in direct contradiction with the fact that the option of ad-hoc distribution is known to exist.
Now, it is possible that you meant to say something along the lines of,
"They signed an NDA that explicitly stated that if they wanted to distribute any app they developed with the iPhone SDK outside the Apple iTunes store, they'd need to meet specific eligibility requirements to do so on an ad-hoc basis"
I don't do software, but my web store costs, including merchant card fees, Google Adsense advertising and the web store service cost about 10% of the sale price. Hosting costs for me is pretty trivial as well, I think I get up to 75GB of transfer for $7.50/mo.
That said, that's a pretty shaky work-around. I wonder if Apple would even allow something like an MMO game, where you might buy the software, but you still need to pay a subscription service to keep your account active.
10% Adsense + $7.50 hosting + $025 CC fee + 3% CC fee + customer service + returns + website maintenance + other forms of advertising, factor in the time you could've been doing something else like adding a new product may very well exceed 30%.
Adsense prices depend on how competitive the market is, and for the iPhone it's pretty hot. Adsense for the iPhone is anywhere between $0.50 to over $1.00 per click.
I think the App Store is a great deal, Apple handles billing, CC transactions, hosting, limitless data transfer, advertising, your own page on the App Store, and awesome development tools. I think whoever gets all that for FREE and then tries to bypass Apple when it comes to money, is violating Apple's rights.
Apple develops hardware like iPhone and iPod Touch platforms and opens the app store allowing developers a brand new market they didn't have before.
Apple develops the SDK xCode tool set making it easier for developers.
Apple offers developers worldwide distribution and handles all sales expenses and effort for only a 30 percent cut.
iTunes software free for both Windows and Mac etc etc etc.
Look guys don't bite off the hand that feeds you. Think about what you'd have if Apple decided to really say f**k you and became a Sprint or Verizon.
All Apple did was to required that developer play by Apple's rules. That's not unreasonable or anti-competitive for what they give you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hypermark
Like I said, perception is reality. The comparison to Sprint and Verizon doesn't work because part of what Apple needs to do to be successful with iPhone/iPod touch is to drive the best and brightest to build killer apps for the platform, whereas Sprint/Verizon are service providers loyal/dependent upon whatever device is most compelling to its audience. This is a platform play, something that becomes painfully clear when developers opt first to develop for another platform, as was the case when Windows became the platform of choice for developers, despite the Mac being arguably superior.
And worth noting, there was a point in time where Apple was in EXACTLY the same position. Heck, Microsoft was cow-towing to Apple because it was the most innovative platform at the time. Then they co-opted them, partnered better and built a bigger ecosystem.
My only point is that history is clear on this one. Good competitors will filter into the market, platform plays are all about securing the hearts and minds of developers (not the other way around), perception has a way of becoming reality, and the uproar by lots of usually Apple loving folks (myself included) is suggestive of more than "we're confused" or "get over it."
Quote:
Originally Posted by ljocampo
My point was Apple owes us nothing but has given us everything we are arguing about. Apple probably doesn't want to compete with Windows platforms and surely doesn't NEED to. It's doing just fine with its niche. The telcos gave us sh*t until iPhone stole their thunder and forced them to make better interfaces. Apple's ITunes, iPods, Computers did the same for their markets, and and now Apple entering the mobile software Apps and mobile games market will do it for handhelds. We have all gained form Apple policies. They don't deserve this negativism.
We disagree, and my reference to Windows platforms is a historical one; namely, that Apple was arrogant about having a better platform and that arrogance led to A LOT of pain and suffering once the initial wave of euphoria wore off since Microsoft became the gorilla not Apple.
My thesis is that history is repeating itself, and the irony is that in a candid moment where Jobs/Gates shared the stage together, Jobs himself acknowledged wishing that they had embraced good partnering in their DNA earlier. I think that this is a perpetual struggle for the company, and when faced with gray areas, they act in ways inconsistent with good partnering. It's really that simple.
In interested, check out the YouTube video at 3:15 into it (or so).
Again, the question isn't whether Apple has raised the bar (they have). It isn't whether they have a right to do what they want (they do). It's a question of what it means to partner well, especially in the context of a platform play, and whether that will serve them in the long run. To the extent developers conclude that categories are closed to them and/or that Apple is predatorial, they will look for better alternatives. If/when that translates to App Store looking like the 99 cent only store as opposed to Nordstroms, they will have won the battle only to lose the war.
Taken at face value, that statement appears to be in direct contradiction with the fact that the option of ad-hoc distribution is known to exist.
Now, it is possible that you meant to say something along the lines of,
"They signed an NDA that explicitly stated that if they wanted to distribute any app they developed with the iPhone SDK outside the Apple iTunes store, they'd need to meet specific eligibility requirements to do so on an ad-hoc basis"
But that's not what you said.
When the iPhone SDK was launched in March, the only way a developer could distribute apps to all iPhone and iPod Touch users was and still is via iTunes.
At the WWDC 2008 Conference keynote, Jobs announced that Enterprise could develop and distribute their custom apps to their intranet and only their approved employees could securely access, download and use them via iTunes. In addition, Apple expanded the developer certification program to allow groups, like University classes to register 100 iPhones to personally use custom apps. Like Enterprise, Ad Hoc distribution must be synced thru iTunes.
And today, there is a fourth way, i.e., the iPhone Developer University Program.
Note, however, the only way you can distribute iPhone apps is via iTunes, and the only way you can distribute iPhone apps to all iPhone and iPod Touch users is via the App Store.
Well, I am not a developer and I have never read the developer contract and don't need to. This is a matter of common sense of which Almerica has shown itself to be completely bereft. It makes perfect sense that the phone, the iPod/iTunes function, and safari and related internet functions are off limits. One of the first things people were excited about with the announcement of the SDK was the possibility of VOIP on the iPhone. This is an absurd notion. Apple is not going to let people screw ATT or any other partner by letting people make free calls on the iPhone. They just as well allow sim unlocking. Apple will not allow Real Player (thank God) to place an app on the phone to side step iTunes. Nor would they let podcasts or movies, or TV shows, or photos, or anything else without going through iTunes. Amazon will never have a music downloading app for the iPhone. Flash will never go on the iPhone without Apple's permission. All of these core functions are, and should be protected by Apple. It is their property and business model. Anyone who does not like that should go buy a Verizon phone and see if they like those set of restrictions better.
The simple fact is the app store is a huge playground. There is plenty of room to play for everyone. There will always be those who like to push the boundaries and will veer too close to the electric fence. Well these guys got what they deserved. Make apps that are well within the acceptable range of common sense and developers can make a lot of money. Try to challenge Apple from within their own playpen and you can expect to get burned.
Well, I am not a developer and I have never read the developer contract and don't need to. This is a matter of common sense of which Almerica has shown itself to be completely bereft. It makes perfect sense that the phone, the iPod/iTunes function, and safari and related internet functions are off limits. One of the first things people were excited about with the announcement of the SDK was the possibility of VOIP on the iPhone. This is an absurd notion. Apple is not going to let people screw ATT or any other partner by letting people make free calls on the iPhone. They just as well allow sim unlocking. Apple will not allow Real Player (thank God) to place an app on the phone to side step iTunes. Nor would they let podcasts or movies, or TV shows, or photos, or anything else without going through iTunes. Amazon will never have a music downloading app for the iPhone. Flash will never go on the iPhone without Apple's permission. All of these core functions are, and should be protected by Apple. It is their property and business model. Anyone who does not like that should go buy a Verizon phone and see if they like those set of restrictions better.
The simple fact is the app store is a huge playground. There is plenty of room to play for everyone. There will always be those who like to push the boundaries and will veer too close to the electric fence. Well these guys got what they deserved. Make apps that are well within the acceptable range of common sense and developers can make a lot of money. Try to challenge Apple from within their own playpen and you can expect to get burned.
completely agree. Apple doesn't owe these people anything. I know of no other company that has given its developers more. Give a finger and they want an arm.
@hyperlink: I hear what your saying and agree to most of it on an altruistic basis, but this is business not the sociology. Once Apple opens their platform to anyone, their competitors will take advantage. The Almerica is this particular case in point.
Comments
The HTC doesn't look like quality, no. But the Android concept is superior to Apples strategy. And I doubt Apple will continue to be hugley successful without changing it once Android has arrived and there are good handsets for it.
The only reason why Apple is currently succesful is because they stirred up the stale handset hardware and UI market. Once the others have caught up, Apple won't have a chance with their closed/controlled/NDAed market model.
I'm highly skeptical that this Android platform is going to be all rosy as some are painting it, but we shall see how successful it is, highly doubt it would be as successful as Apple's offering. From what they released yesterday, they have a long way to go.
The HTC doesn't look like quality, no. But the Android concept is superior to Apples strategy. And I doubt Apple will continue to be hugley successful without changing it once Android has arrived and there are good handsets for it.
The only reason why Apple is currently succesful is because they stirred up the stale handset hardware and UI market. Once the others have caught up, Apple won't have a chance with their closed/controlled/NDAed market model.
You are so wrong it's funny. The Android will validate Apple's strategy very quickly. The complete chaos that will ensue once this thing is on the market will be a sight to see. With no controls on who or how apps are developed the results will be a complete collapse of the model. The Android devices will be extremely crash prone because of conflicting code, something Apple is trying to control. No, you have the facts in reverse. Google will be forced to adopt the Apple model if it is to have any chance of surviving. And you can take that to the bank.
Others have said it before but it is worth re-stating. If App Store was simply A distribution point for iPhone/iPod touch apps, it would be one thing. But when App Store is THE sole distribution point for those apps, I would assert that the responsibility bar is higher for Apple not to F-CK its developers, or have a whiff of smelling like it is doing same to a sizable constituency of its base, as is the case here.
Perception is reality.
Apple develops hardware like iPhone and iPod Touch platforms and opens the app store allowing developers a brand new market they didn't have before.
Apple develops the SDK xCode tool set making it easier for developers.
Apple offers developers worldwide distribution and handles all sales expenses and effort for only a 30 percent cut.
iTunes software free for both Windows and Mac etc etc etc.
Look guys don't bite off the hand that feeds you. Think about what you'd have if Apple decided to really say f**k you and became a Sprint or Verizon.
All Apple did was to required that developer play by Apple's rules. That's not unreasonable or anti-competitive for what they give you.
I don't get it though. Why is Apple keeping people from developing for the iphone and ipod touch applications that would truly solidfiy the platform for the long term future?
Ask AT&T and the world carriers selling iPhone that want to make sure the OS X running on the iPhone doesn't have a means to hack their network and wreak havoc to hundreds of millions of customers and their private billing information.
as a shade-tree programmer, looking at cell platforms to toy with, this is a huge strike against Apple for me: I could spend months developing a great app just to be blocked from the marketplace because Apple decides to based on some mysterious standard? and hey, as if that werent enough of a reason, a java app will work on BB and android, Obj-c is iphone only...and frankly, xcode sucks: so why dev for the iphone again?
as a user of the iphone platform, this is frustrating, I want podcasting in the iphone, there is no acceptable excuse why it was left out, and blocking that app was unforgivable.
Apple is on the verge of "jumping the shark" they are treading on MS mid 90s territory here. ala killing netscape as it was a competitor to its own product.
Sign up, read the terms and re-read what you wrote. There never was a mystery unless you accept the fact that developers failed to "read" the terms and conditions of the SDK when they signed on.
They weren't blind-sided. And for their "confusion" they didn't contact Apple until they had written an application that if they had "read" the terms never would have been developed without first clarifying with Apple.
In short, they either blindly chose to ignore the terms or have intentionally preyed upon the ignorance of the non-developer community to create bad press for Apple and great press for Android.
Apple develops hardware like iPhone and iPod Touch platforms and opens the app store allowing developers a brand new market they didn't have before.
Apple develops the SDK xCode tool set making it easier for developers.
Apple offers developers worldwide distribution and handles all sales expenses and effort for only a 30 percent cut.
iTunes software free for both Windows and Mac etc etc etc.
Look guys don't bite off the hand that feeds you. Think about what you'd have if Apple decided to really say f**k you and became a Sprint or Verizon.
All Apple did was to required that developer play by Apple's rules. That's not unreasonable or anti-competitive for what they give you.
Like I said, perception is reality. The comparison to Sprint and Verizon doesn't work because part of what Apple needs to do to be successful with iPhone/iPod touch is to drive the best and brightest to build killer apps for the platform, whereas Sprint/Verizon are service providers loyal/dependent upon whatever device is most compelling to its audience. This is a platform play, something that becomes painfully clear when developers opt first to develop for another platform, as was the case when Windows became the platform of choice for developers, despite the Mac being arguably superior.
And worth noting, there was a point in time where Apple was in EXACTLY the same position. Heck, Microsoft was cow-towing to Apple because it was the most innovative platform at the time. Then they co-opted them, partnered better and built a bigger ecosystem.
My only point is that history is clear on this one. Good competitors will filter into the market, platform plays are all about securing the hearts and minds of developers (not the other way around), perception has a way of becoming reality, and the uproar by lots of usually Apple loving folks (myself included) is suggestive of more than "we're confused" or "get over it."
Easy.
Consider building an application for the iPhone, that will stream NBC content for free.
Now, the content I'm going to stream is also available for sale on iTunes.
That content, from iTunes, provides a revenue stream to Apple and also to the actual owner of the content..... NBC.
Apple has an agreement with NBC over that content.
Apple also has an agreement with me as a developer.
These agreements are meant to keep us all protected and safe.
Now, YOU seem to want to spur "inovation" by allowing me to stream content owned by others for free, in the face of the litigation that it would cause to Apple.
Stealing other people's content and supplying it for free is not inovation.
It's stealing.
The podcast system described can download a lot more than just a podcast and doesn't deal with ownership issues.
NOTE: If you substitute iTunes and NBC above for an example that would be a company providing material via Amazon or some other outlet it doesn't change anything. Apple is not in the business of destroying intellectual property rights or copyright infringment.
If that's the inovation you're looking for, you won't find it here or on Android.
Yes yes use stupid easy examples and imply stuff I didn't say to support your view. Good job!
I want you to continue saying that the next time we find out of yet another useful application that was rejected after hard work by the developer and with no apparent reason.
You are so wrong it's funny. The Android will validate Apple's strategy very quickly. The complete chaos that will ensue once this thing is on the market will be a sight to see. With no controls on who or how apps are developed the results will be a complete collapse of the model. The Android devices will be extremely crash prone because of conflicting code, something Apple is trying to control. No, you have the facts in reverse. Google will be forced to adopt the Apple model if it is to have any chance of surviving. And you can take that to the bank.
I think you need to lay off the kool-aid a bit.
Like I said, perception is reality. The comparison to Sprint and Verizon doesn't work because part of what Apple needs to do to be successful with iPhone/iPod touch is to drive the best and brightest to build killer apps for the platform, whereas Sprint/Verizon are service providers loyal/dependent upon whatever device is most compelling to its audience. This is a platform play, something that becomes painfully clear when developers opt first to develop for another platform, as was the case when Windows became the platform of choice for developers, despite the Mac being arguably superior.
And worth noting, there was a point in time where Apple was in EXACTLY the same position. Heck, Microsoft was cow-towing to Apple because it was the most innovative platform at the time. Then they co-opted them, partnered better and built a bigger ecosystem.
My only point is that history is clear on this one. Good competitors will filter into the market, platform plays are all about securing the hearts and minds of developers (not the other way around), perception has a way of becoming reality, and the uproar by lots of usually Apple loving folks (myself included) is suggestive of more than "we're confused" or "get over it."
My point was Apple owes us nothing but has given us everything we are arguing about. Apple probably doesn't want to compete with Windows platforms and surely doesn't NEED to. It's doing just fine with its niche. The telcos gave us sh*t until iPhone stole their thunder and forced them to make better interfaces. Apple's ITunes, iPods, Computers did the same for their markets, and and now Apple entering the mobile software Apps and mobile games market will do it for handhelds. We have all gained form Apple policies. They don't deserve this negativism.
Sorry, I didn't mean to come across as though I was making totally unsubstantiated assumptions. I was simply working from Steve Job's public references to the ad-hoc distribution method back at the SDK announcement event.
I am curious as to exactly how that distribution method, announced right out of Steve Jobs' lips, is intended to be applied. Or, as the case may be, whether Apple might have decided to retract that option without fanfare.
"The Apps Store is going to be the exclusive way to distribute your applications." 1:026:24 mark of the "Apple March 6 Event: iPhone Software Roadmap" podcast
Also, look at the "limitations" discussed at the 1:07:47 mark.
Then at the WWDC 2008 Keynote Address, Ad Hoc distribution was introduced that allows certified developers to distribute their apps to 100 registered iPhones at the 1:06:02 mark.
Note that both podcasts are available via the iTunes store.
Absolutely disgusting.
What are you talking about? Apple is a business, they're trying to protect their revenue stream for the iPhone. You don't like it, move to Cuba.
"The Apps Store is going to be the exclusive way to distribute your applications." 1:026:24 mark of the "Apple March 6 Event: iPhone Software Roadmap" podcast
Also, look at the "limitations" discussed at the 1:07:47 mark.
Then at the WWDC 2008 Keynote Address, Ad Hoc distribution was introduced that allows certified developers to distribute their apps to 100 registered iPhones at the 1:06:02 mark.
Note that both podcasts are available via the iTunes store.
Ok, so which announcement is telling the truth?
Is the iTunes App Store the exclusive (ie. no alternatives exist) means of distributing the apps, like the 1st webcast says?
Or, are certified developers allowed to ad-hoc distribute their apps to 100 registered iPhones like the 2nd webcast (and Apple's own website) says?
Ok, so which announcement is telling the truth?
Is the iTunes App Store the exclusive (ie. no alternatives exist) means of distributing the apps, like the 1st webcast says?
Or, are certified developers allowed to ad-hoc distribute their apps to 100 registered iPhones like the 2nd webcast (and Apple's own website) says?
Are you implying that one is a lie?
They both were telling the truth. The "exclusive" distribution was presented at the Apple March 6 Event: iPhone Software Roadmap keynote in March and the Ad-hoc distribution which is highly restricted was introduced 3 months later. Makes sense. Developers requested it and Apple complied.
To Phyzlxxxxx: If you are around you may want to check out http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...downloads.html. Looks like Blu-Ray is not doing well.
And you would be the old-as-dirt, cynical curmudgeon?
Why does expecting to get paid for real work make him a curmudgeon? Kids without careers, cars, homes or families can give their work away. For them it's incidental, and makes them look cool to the other freeloaders.
Are you implying that one is a lie?
They both were telling the truth. The "exclusive" distribution was presented at the Apple March 6 Event: iPhone Software Roadmap keynote in March and the Ad-hoc distribution which is highly restricted was introduced 3 months later. Makes sense. Developers requested it and Apple complied.
But you had previously stated:
They signed an NDA that explicitly stated that they could not distribute any app they developed with the iPhone SDK outside the Apple iTunes store
Taken at face value, that statement appears to be in direct contradiction with the fact that the option of ad-hoc distribution is known to exist.
Now, it is possible that you meant to say something along the lines of,
"They signed an NDA that explicitly stated that if they wanted to distribute any app they developed with the iPhone SDK outside the Apple iTunes store, they'd need to meet specific eligibility requirements to do so on an ad-hoc basis"
But that's not what you said.
I don't do software, but my web store costs, including merchant card fees, Google Adsense advertising and the web store service cost about 10% of the sale price. Hosting costs for me is pretty trivial as well, I think I get up to 75GB of transfer for $7.50/mo.
That said, that's a pretty shaky work-around. I wonder if Apple would even allow something like an MMO game, where you might buy the software, but you still need to pay a subscription service to keep your account active.
10% Adsense + $7.50 hosting + $025 CC fee + 3% CC fee + customer service + returns + website maintenance + other forms of advertising, factor in the time you could've been doing something else like adding a new product may very well exceed 30%.
Adsense prices depend on how competitive the market is, and for the iPhone it's pretty hot. Adsense for the iPhone is anywhere between $0.50 to over $1.00 per click.
I think the App Store is a great deal, Apple handles billing, CC transactions, hosting, limitless data transfer, advertising, your own page on the App Store, and awesome development tools. I think whoever gets all that for FREE and then tries to bypass Apple when it comes to money, is violating Apple's rights.
Apple develops hardware like iPhone and iPod Touch platforms and opens the app store allowing developers a brand new market they didn't have before.
Apple develops the SDK xCode tool set making it easier for developers.
Apple offers developers worldwide distribution and handles all sales expenses and effort for only a 30 percent cut.
iTunes software free for both Windows and Mac etc etc etc.
Look guys don't bite off the hand that feeds you. Think about what you'd have if Apple decided to really say f**k you and became a Sprint or Verizon.
All Apple did was to required that developer play by Apple's rules. That's not unreasonable or anti-competitive for what they give you.
Like I said, perception is reality. The comparison to Sprint and Verizon doesn't work because part of what Apple needs to do to be successful with iPhone/iPod touch is to drive the best and brightest to build killer apps for the platform, whereas Sprint/Verizon are service providers loyal/dependent upon whatever device is most compelling to its audience. This is a platform play, something that becomes painfully clear when developers opt first to develop for another platform, as was the case when Windows became the platform of choice for developers, despite the Mac being arguably superior.
And worth noting, there was a point in time where Apple was in EXACTLY the same position. Heck, Microsoft was cow-towing to Apple because it was the most innovative platform at the time. Then they co-opted them, partnered better and built a bigger ecosystem.
My only point is that history is clear on this one. Good competitors will filter into the market, platform plays are all about securing the hearts and minds of developers (not the other way around), perception has a way of becoming reality, and the uproar by lots of usually Apple loving folks (myself included) is suggestive of more than "we're confused" or "get over it."
My point was Apple owes us nothing but has given us everything we are arguing about. Apple probably doesn't want to compete with Windows platforms and surely doesn't NEED to. It's doing just fine with its niche. The telcos gave us sh*t until iPhone stole their thunder and forced them to make better interfaces. Apple's ITunes, iPods, Computers did the same for their markets, and and now Apple entering the mobile software Apps and mobile games market will do it for handhelds. We have all gained form Apple policies. They don't deserve this negativism.
We disagree, and my reference to Windows platforms is a historical one; namely, that Apple was arrogant about having a better platform and that arrogance led to A LOT of pain and suffering once the initial wave of euphoria wore off since Microsoft became the gorilla not Apple.
My thesis is that history is repeating itself, and the irony is that in a candid moment where Jobs/Gates shared the stage together, Jobs himself acknowledged wishing that they had embraced good partnering in their DNA earlier. I think that this is a perpetual struggle for the company, and when faced with gray areas, they act in ways inconsistent with good partnering. It's really that simple.
In interested, check out the YouTube video at 3:15 into it (or so).
Again, the question isn't whether Apple has raised the bar (they have). It isn't whether they have a right to do what they want (they do). It's a question of what it means to partner well, especially in the context of a platform play, and whether that will serve them in the long run. To the extent developers conclude that categories are closed to them and/or that Apple is predatorial, they will look for better alternatives. If/when that translates to App Store looking like the 99 cent only store as opposed to Nordstroms, they will have won the battle only to lose the war.
Mark
--
Read - Apple: White Hat, Black Hat
http://thenetworkgarden.com/weblog/2...ter-perce.html
But you had previously stated:
Taken at face value, that statement appears to be in direct contradiction with the fact that the option of ad-hoc distribution is known to exist.
Now, it is possible that you meant to say something along the lines of,
"They signed an NDA that explicitly stated that if they wanted to distribute any app they developed with the iPhone SDK outside the Apple iTunes store, they'd need to meet specific eligibility requirements to do so on an ad-hoc basis"
But that's not what you said.
When the iPhone SDK was launched in March, the only way a developer could distribute apps to all iPhone and iPod Touch users was and still is via iTunes.
At the WWDC 2008 Conference keynote, Jobs announced that Enterprise could develop and distribute their custom apps to their intranet and only their approved employees could securely access, download and use them via iTunes. In addition, Apple expanded the developer certification program to allow groups, like University classes to register 100 iPhones to personally use custom apps. Like Enterprise, Ad Hoc distribution must be synced thru iTunes.
And today, there is a fourth way, i.e., the iPhone Developer University Program.
Note, however, the only way you can distribute iPhone apps is via iTunes, and the only way you can distribute iPhone apps to all iPhone and iPod Touch users is via the App Store.
The simple fact is the app store is a huge playground. There is plenty of room to play for everyone. There will always be those who like to push the boundaries and will veer too close to the electric fence. Well these guys got what they deserved. Make apps that are well within the acceptable range of common sense and developers can make a lot of money. Try to challenge Apple from within their own playpen and you can expect to get burned.
Well, I am not a developer and I have never read the developer contract and don't need to. This is a matter of common sense of which Almerica has shown itself to be completely bereft. It makes perfect sense that the phone, the iPod/iTunes function, and safari and related internet functions are off limits. One of the first things people were excited about with the announcement of the SDK was the possibility of VOIP on the iPhone. This is an absurd notion. Apple is not going to let people screw ATT or any other partner by letting people make free calls on the iPhone. They just as well allow sim unlocking. Apple will not allow Real Player (thank God) to place an app on the phone to side step iTunes. Nor would they let podcasts or movies, or TV shows, or photos, or anything else without going through iTunes. Amazon will never have a music downloading app for the iPhone. Flash will never go on the iPhone without Apple's permission. All of these core functions are, and should be protected by Apple. It is their property and business model. Anyone who does not like that should go buy a Verizon phone and see if they like those set of restrictions better.
The simple fact is the app store is a huge playground. There is plenty of room to play for everyone. There will always be those who like to push the boundaries and will veer too close to the electric fence. Well these guys got what they deserved. Make apps that are well within the acceptable range of common sense and developers can make a lot of money. Try to challenge Apple from within their own playpen and you can expect to get burned.
completely agree. Apple doesn't owe these people anything. I know of no other company that has given its developers more. Give a finger and they want an arm.
@hyperlink: I hear what your saying and agree to most of it on an altruistic basis, but this is business not the sociology. Once Apple opens their platform to anyone, their competitors will take advantage. The Almerica is this particular case in point.