EACH app will cost the developer $99 to post. This will cover hosting cost, a review process, obtaining a certificate, and will discourage posting frivolous applications. Seems pretty reasonable to me.
See, I interpreted that as developers will need to pay to get a key and then can use that key on however many apps they want. It is a way to be able to trace an app back to the person who developed it in case there are problems.
If it IS $99/app. That is more annoying, but not for "commercial" developers. $99 is nothing for an app you plan to sell 1000s of at even $5-$10 a copy. Yes, it will frustrate and annoy the hobbyist developers, but I don't hate on Apple too much for wanting to limit deployment to "serious" people.
Someone will figure out how to get around the registration key and the hobbyist/enthusiast market will thrive. It will just keep a lot of marginal apps off Apple's distribution channel.
The $99 fee is going to kill what is known as freeware.
First: I'm sure someone will find someway to load apps onto the iphone (they've done it before and they'll do it again) - it won't be pretty but it'll allow the hardcore users to install freeware apps and once an app has a following the author can post it online at the iTunes store for $1.99 or something and allow the great unwashed masses to fund the apps publication fee.
If the app can't garner 50 people to pony up $1.99 each then it says just about all that needs to be said about the usefulness of the app...
If you pay for the kit, are you having to submit the application to apple for approval?
This would help prevent viruses ? yes - no?
This would help from REALLY bad applications getting out there? If someone tries to write an application, that go go in and get all of your phone numbers / data, and then trash it, or trash the phone so it wouldn't. By having to submit the application to Apple, then they would at least have the chance to check it out first.
Of course, not being a programmer, maybe all of this is a mood point?
Yay, another "nominal" fee. I'll bet it's £12.99/$19.99 again. I sure love getting punched in the bean bag every 3 months Apple. I wouldn't mind if the charge was actually nominal.
2:30: Apple will prevent developers from distributing Apps on their own. They must pay the $99 fee, get an electronic certificate, and distribute via Apple's new iPhone App Store.
EACH app will cost the developer $99 to post. This will cover hosting cost, a review process, obtaining a certificate, and will discourage posting frivolous applications. Seems pretty reasonable to me.
Actually, what you quoted doesn't say anything about each app. It is ambiguous, which is why I said it needed clarification. If the certificate is per-developer, then the $99 fee is per-developer in the quoted text. If the certificate is per-app, then the $99 fee is per-app.
I can't find clarification on Apple's site yet, but let's not start unequivically stating things that Apple hasn't said.
Edit: Apple's site seems to imply that it's $99 to join the program, and free to host any apps.
Yay, another "nominal" fee. I'll bet it's £12.99/$19.99 again. I sure love getting punched in the bean bag every 3 months Apple. I wouldn't mind if the charge was actually nominal.
Oh jesus tapdancing christ, it's twenty f-ing dollars. I'm a full time college student, part time freelance artist, and even I see $20 as nominal. I mean, seriously, if you can't handle $20 for a software bundle, I think you need to find a better job, or y'know, don't spend all your money on personal technology.
I wrote a consolidated reply to the OP. What I really meant was that you can read and ingest a good chuck of the info before the refresh occurs. I certainly could been more precise. I think you undestand why i didnt' care to be.
Well, yes, but it is still quite annoying, it blanks the entire screen, resets the location and I have to find where I was last.
To me, what you wrote clearly suggests reading the entire article in 60 seconds, even if what you meant was different. There are better ways to do it, and I think AI used to use something better than that.
Not that I'm saying it justifies a certain person's behavior to the slightest degree.
No, it's 99 bucks one time even if you don't publish something.
Then as many as you do..... no charge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ravelgrane
EACH app will cost the developer $99 to post. This will cover hosting cost, a review process, obtaining a certificate, and will discourage posting frivolous applications. Seems pretty reasonable to me.
It's unclear, but the addition of Electronic Signature leads me to beleive that it's per app. Either way, we should have an unarguable answer within a few hours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
Crap or not, $99 is a tiny amount to charge. What is the big deal? You'll pay more for coffee over a year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackSummerNight
The $99 fee is going to kill what is known as freeware.
Or hosting your app on a server for 6 months that has any decent bandwidth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab
Revenue share for DoCoMo's imode is 9% for DoCoMo, the developer keeps 91%.
Revenue share for Qualcomm BREW is 10% for Qualcomm, 10% for carrier (i.e. Verizon's Get It Now store) and the developer keeps 80%.
Interesting! Do you know if Apple is doing more with regards to testing, assisting and hosting that DoCoMo and Qualcomm aren't? I'm sure they looked into these companies when planning their service. Do these companies also have an equivalent "iFund" service in place?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackSummerNight
I wonder why they don't want VOIP data on cingular's network.
I'm sure it's part of the agreement with the carriers. If I could use VoIP on my iPhone on a cell tower I'd lower my minutes to the cheapest package available, and even cancel voice if possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackSummerNight
So why would Apple say they are the exclusive distributor of Apps, If I can just make all my apps available on my site.
There will be sites advertising their apps, but the download link will probably route to the iTunes Apps Store via something like: http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
Well, yes, but it is still annoying. What you wrote to me clearly suggests reading the entire article in 60 seconds, even if what you meant was different. There are better ways to do it, and I think AI used to use something better than that.
If it was a more mature reply I would have been throughout. AI is clearly worried about server load by constant refreshes, which is why they added that feature. But I don't understand if they are concerned about the load, why they had the entire site reload instead of using a dynamic page that only loads the additional information.
Do they have other charges? They seemed to make a pretty big deal out of not charging any hosting fees, marketing fees, or credit card fees.
No hosting fees, no marketing fees and credit card fees for DoCoMo and Qualcomm BREW. They do charge certification fees.
When you buy a game from Verizon's Get It Now --- they don't ask for your credit card number. Verizon put the charges on your monthly bill, then they send 10% to Qualcomm and 80% to the developer.
The upgrade fee for the iPod Touch is due to the accounting laws and has been DISCUSSED AND EXPLAINED AD NAUSEAM.
Who came up with the "accounting" justification first? Did Apple themselves provide this explanation first? Or did some news website throw it out there, and Apple ran with it? As I understand, those "accounting laws" do not specify how much a company has to charge. So if Apple honestly did want to offer the update for free but wasn't allowed to, then why don't they do the next best thing? Offer the update for something like 20 cents instead of $20. If Apple can do that, then their "accounting" rationalization might be more believable.
Interesting! Do you know if Apple is doing more with regards to testing, assisting and hosting that DoCoMo and Qualcomm aren't? I'm sure they looked into these companies when planning their service. Do these companies also have an equivalent "iFund" service in place.
You only need an iFund type push when you have zero developers on your mobile platform. iMode and BREW have been around for 15 years with thousands and thousands of developers.
Remember that if you are on the imode catalog, then you are exposed to 48 million imode users. If you are on the Qualcomm catalog, then you are exposed to 400-500 million CDMA users.
Comments
So why would Apple say they are the exclusive distributor of Apps, If I can just make all my apps available on my site.
Web Apps are not Apps.
I'm not a developer, but wouldn't you do the debugging on the simulator first?
Probably, but at some point the application would have to be tested on the iPhone itself.
I thought from reading the blog that the SDK makes this possible. If so, I envisioned a
case where some corporation developed in-house software, completely debugged it, and
then some unfortunate sysop person would load it onto 500 iPhones, using the SDK
on a Mac.
This would just be a stop-gap measure until Apple provides the functionality.
No, go back and read the Q+A:
EACH app will cost the developer $99 to post. This will cover hosting cost, a review process, obtaining a certificate, and will discourage posting frivolous applications. Seems pretty reasonable to me.
See, I interpreted that as developers will need to pay to get a key and then can use that key on however many apps they want. It is a way to be able to trace an app back to the person who developed it in case there are problems.
If it IS $99/app. That is more annoying, but not for "commercial" developers. $99 is nothing for an app you plan to sell 1000s of at even $5-$10 a copy. Yes, it will frustrate and annoy the hobbyist developers, but I don't hate on Apple too much for wanting to limit deployment to "serious" people.
Someone will figure out how to get around the registration key and the hobbyist/enthusiast market will thrive. It will just keep a lot of marginal apps off Apple's distribution channel.
- Jasen.
The $99 fee is going to kill what is known as freeware.
First: I'm sure someone will find someway to load apps onto the iphone (they've done it before and they'll do it again) - it won't be pretty but it'll allow the hardcore users to install freeware apps and once an app has a following the author can post it online at the iTunes store for $1.99 or something and allow the great unwashed masses to fund the apps publication fee.
If the app can't garner 50 people to pony up $1.99 each then it says just about all that needs to be said about the usefulness of the app...
Dave
This would help prevent viruses ? yes - no?
This would help from REALLY bad applications getting out there? If someone tries to write an application, that go go in and get all of your phone numbers / data, and then trash it, or trash the phone so it wouldn't. By having to submit the application to Apple, then they would at least have the chance to check it out first.
Of course, not being a programmer, maybe all of this is a mood point?
Skip
2:30: Apple will prevent developers from distributing Apps on their own. They must pay the $99 fee, get an electronic certificate, and distribute via Apple's new iPhone App Store.
EACH app will cost the developer $99 to post. This will cover hosting cost, a review process, obtaining a certificate, and will discourage posting frivolous applications. Seems pretty reasonable to me.
Actually, what you quoted doesn't say anything about each app. It is ambiguous, which is why I said it needed clarification. If the certificate is per-developer, then the $99 fee is per-developer in the quoted text. If the certificate is per-app, then the $99 fee is per-app.
I can't find clarification on Apple's site yet, but let's not start unequivically stating things that Apple hasn't said.
Edit: Apple's site seems to imply that it's $99 to join the program, and free to host any apps.
Yay, another "nominal" fee. I'll bet it's £12.99/$19.99 again. I sure love getting punched in the bean bag every 3 months Apple. I wouldn't mind if the charge was actually nominal.
Oh jesus tapdancing christ, it's twenty f-ing dollars. I'm a full time college student, part time freelance artist, and even I see $20 as nominal. I mean, seriously, if you can't handle $20 for a software bundle, I think you need to find a better job, or y'know, don't spend all your money on personal technology.
I'm looking forward to the release.
I wrote a consolidated reply to the OP. What I really meant was that you can read and ingest a good chuck of the info before the refresh occurs. I certainly could been more precise. I think you undestand why i didnt' care to be.
Well, yes, but it is still quite annoying, it blanks the entire screen, resets the location and I have to find where I was last.
To me, what you wrote clearly suggests reading the entire article in 60 seconds, even if what you meant was different. There are better ways to do it, and I think AI used to use something better than that.
Not that I'm saying it justifies a certain person's behavior to the slightest degree.
No, it's 99 bucks one time even if you don't publish something.
Then as many as you do..... no charge.
EACH app will cost the developer $99 to post. This will cover hosting cost, a review process, obtaining a certificate, and will discourage posting frivolous applications. Seems pretty reasonable to me.
It's unclear, but the addition of Electronic Signature leads me to beleive that it's per app. Either way, we should have an unarguable answer within a few hours.
Crap or not, $99 is a tiny amount to charge. What is the big deal? You'll pay more for coffee over a year.
The $99 fee is going to kill what is known as freeware.
Or hosting your app on a server for 6 months that has any decent bandwidth.
Revenue share for DoCoMo's imode is 9% for DoCoMo, the developer keeps 91%.
Revenue share for Qualcomm BREW is 10% for Qualcomm, 10% for carrier (i.e. Verizon's Get It Now store) and the developer keeps 80%.
Interesting! Do you know if Apple is doing more with regards to testing, assisting and hosting that DoCoMo and Qualcomm aren't? I'm sure they looked into these companies when planning their service. Do these companies also have an equivalent "iFund" service in place?
I wonder why they don't want VOIP data on cingular's network.
I'm sure it's part of the agreement with the carriers. If I could use VoIP on my iPhone on a cell tower I'd lower my minutes to the cheapest package available, and even cancel voice if possible.
So why would Apple say they are the exclusive distributor of Apps, If I can just make all my apps available on my site.
There will be sites advertising their apps, but the download link will probably route to the iTunes Apps Store via something like: http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/etc.
Well, yes, but it is still annoying. What you wrote to me clearly suggests reading the entire article in 60 seconds, even if what you meant was different. There are better ways to do it, and I think AI used to use something better than that.
If it was a more mature reply I would have been throughout. AI is clearly worried about server load by constant refreshes, which is why they added that feature. But I don't understand if they are concerned about the load, why they had the entire site reload instead of using a dynamic page that only loads the additional information.
Do they have other charges? They seemed to make a pretty big deal out of not charging any hosting fees, marketing fees, or credit card fees.
No hosting fees, no marketing fees and credit card fees for DoCoMo and Qualcomm BREW. They do charge certification fees.
When you buy a game from Verizon's Get It Now --- they don't ask for your credit card number. Verizon put the charges on your monthly bill, then they send 10% to Qualcomm and 80% to the developer.
2:29: Apple will prevent VoIP apps over cellular networks, but not over WiFi.
2:11: NO CHARGE FOR FREE APPS.
GREAT!
They do charge certification fees.
How much are they?
Awesome
GREAT!
The upgrade fee for the iPod Touch is due to the accounting laws and has been DISCUSSED AND EXPLAINED AD NAUSEAM.
Who came up with the "accounting" justification first? Did Apple themselves provide this explanation first? Or did some news website throw it out there, and Apple ran with it? As I understand, those "accounting laws" do not specify how much a company has to charge. So if Apple honestly did want to offer the update for free but wasn't allowed to, then why don't they do the next best thing? Offer the update for something like 20 cents instead of $20. If Apple can do that, then their "accounting" rationalization might be more believable.
Interesting! Do you know if Apple is doing more with regards to testing, assisting and hosting that DoCoMo and Qualcomm aren't? I'm sure they looked into these companies when planning their service. Do these companies also have an equivalent "iFund" service in place.
You only need an iFund type push when you have zero developers on your mobile platform. iMode and BREW have been around for 15 years with thousands and thousands of developers.
Remember that if you are on the imode catalog, then you are exposed to 48 million imode users. If you are on the Qualcomm catalog, then you are exposed to 400-500 million CDMA users.
$99 fee to publish applications? even for "free" applications?
this is against nature of free software
I paid more for hosting few thing in the past on my server.... it is not too much.
I'm not a developer, but wouldn't you do the debugging on the simulator first?
I wonder if the simulator can simulate multi-touch gestures or tilting the iPhone in different directions.