To me the reason for that has always been what I think obvious.. they aren't going to release iChat for the iPhone until the day release iChat 4.0 for Windows, and that "will" happen this year.
You think so? I just don't see a benefit for another multi-IM client on Windows. But if it does come to Windows it will need full MSN and Yahoo support for the Win and Mac versions to make it viable.
Either way, I have no doubt that Adium developers are already working on iAdium.
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 doesn't look to be for each app. The certificate is to be able to track the developer in case (s)he does something that isn't proper with their apps that Apple missed upon application.
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
We'll see about the unregistered apps. I'm not sure they will be able to load them.
What has to be remembered is that the only reason why they work now, is because of an unfixed security hole in the iPhone's Safari. Apple, so far, has chosen not to fix that hole, even though they have fixed other security holes.
Want to guess why?
But, once we get the ver. 2 upgrade, with all of the new enterprise goodies, and whatnot, why would Apple leave that gaping, well publicized, security hole, open?
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.
Sure, it would be nice if it were free. You don't have to get the new upgrade, with all the new enterprise features, or the ability to add new programs if you don't want to pay for it.
By the way, tell us which other portable player has upgrades?
You know why you will have to pay for this if you have an iTouch. Stop complaining, you aren't being forced into it.
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.
You can't simply run with it.
Actually, Apple doesn't have to charge this fee. But, if they don't, they have to pay it themselves. It is a bit complex, but the number isn't pulled out of thin air. The charge has to be related to the value of the item being added to the product.
I wish people would stop making a big deal out of it though.
By now, everyone should know that the iPhone and ATv get free updates, and the iTouch has to pay for them.
If it isn't worth it to some people, they have the option of not getting it. I'm not referring to you in particular, but throwing it out in general.
It doesn't look to be for each app. The certificate is to be able to track the developer in case (s)he does something that isn't proper with their apps that Apple missed upon application.
The Q+A and live blogging was ambiguous but the keynote clearly states that it's $99 for access to the SDK and right to post. There seems to be no other fees. This is quite agressive on Apple's part, but people will complain about the price anyway. In fact, I think we had two new posters who were slinging insults left and right earlier who got banned and their posts deleted. Fun fun fun.
I look forward to seeing how RiM, Nokia and MS react to this "practically free" mobile platform. I also wonder wht is going to happen with RiM tomorrow, but it may be too early for the masses to see the storm that is brewing in Cupertino.
At first, I thought it was SOx but upon looking into it it seems unlikely. Now I think it's just a way to cover the costs of development and, of course, to make a profit. iPhone users are paying it for to their carriers who pay Apple. I see nothing unreasonable with charging customers for anything beyond bug fixes.
You're a fool if you think the nominal little charge they have for the touch upgrade is going to come anywhere near the cost of the development for all of this.
They are chargin chump change, just enough to get past the regulators and bean counters.
You're a fool if you think the nominal little charge they have for the touch upgrade is going to come anywhere near the cost of the development for all of this.
They are chargin chump change, just enough to get past the regulators and bean counters.
The Q+A and live blogging was ambiguous but the keynote clearly states that it's $99 for access to the SDK and right to post. There seems to be no other fees. This is quite agressive on Apple's part, but people will complain about the price anyway. In fact, I think we had two new posters who were slinging insults left and right earlier who got banned and their posts deleted. Fun fun fun.
I look forward to seeing how RiM, Nokia and MS react to this "practically free" mobile platform. I also wonder wht is going to happen with RiM tomorrow, but it may be too early for the masses to see the storm that is brewing in Cupertino.
I think this goes further than just paying for the right to post. You get the SDK for free, at least the beta.
"Jobs continuing on: Developers have to register with us. For that $99, we give them an electronic certificate that tells us who they are..."
I don't know how much of the real quote that is, though it reads like one. But, the "tells us who they are, sounds more like a tracking device.
I found it.
Here, from Macworlds coverage, is the apparently real, whole quote"
Quote:
"The developers have to register with us, and for $99 they get an electronic certificate, and that tells us who they are. If they write a malicious app, we can track them down, we can tell their parents, and we will know who they are. And we can turn off the spigot if we need to."
I think this goes further than just paying for the right to post. You get the SDK for free, at least the beta.
Yeah, definitely. So far it seems there is a good accountability system in place and a way for a plethora of free apps to be available. I look forward to Adium and Skype being ready for primetime by June.
PS: They have enable remote wipe with Exchange but that does me no good. I hope someone finds a way to hook into that feature in Mobile OS X so I can send something as a simple as a "specially" written SMS message or use Yahoo's PUSH to activate it incase of loss or theft. Or even contact AT&T to have them send the wipe; we could certainly use more of carrier-manufacturer tie-ins.
PPS: I wonder how long it will be before we start seeing application demos using video captures of the iPhone Simulator popping up on YouTube? Should be interesting.
It's not much, but I do question its necessity, and there's a principe of the thing, it seems like Apple's getting into the habit of nickel-and-diming its customers. Apple's iPod update to let people play games and added better search functionality did not cost anything, but things seem to have changed in the last couple years. The game update allowed people to buy games from Apple. The iTouch update should be able to allow people to buy software from Apple. It seems pretty odd this time around to have to pay money to get the opportunity to pay for software. It would seem that Apple would want to keep the barriers to entry low.
You're not just paying for AppStore. You are paying for Mobile OSX 2.0 and which ever significant app upgrades that come with it. Apple will have likely done enough work to warrant a $20 upgrade.
The iPod has a much simpler OS that likely did not take very much work.
You're not just paying for AppStore. You are paying for Mobile OSX 2.0 and which ever significant app upgrades that come with it. Apple will have likely done enough work to warrant a $20 upgrade.
The iPod has a much simpler OS that likely did not take very much work.
Who knows, it might even be less.
In addition, to those who think that 30% take for Apple is too much, remember that this is also covering the cost of all of those free apps that Apple will be hosting, with their upgrades etc. That has to be paid for as well, and Apple isn't charging the developers for those. I checked by looking at the presentation.
Apple is ALWAYS trying to make a profit. Just keep that in mind, no matter what the level of benevolence appears to be.
But then won't Mac people just call you a conspiracy theorist, accuse you of wearing a tinfoil hat, and ask if you have a gun pointed at your head? Is this one of those "dirty little secrets" which everyone knows about, but is taboo to speak of openly?
They make a profit or the shareholders run away like sheep on fire.
It would seem that the interests of shareholders are different from the interests of actual customers. While customers care about long term support, shareholders care about the company bringing in money any way it can.
It would seem that the interests of shareholders are different from the interests of actual customers. While customers care about long term support, shareholders care about the company bringing in money any way it can.
Actually, they aren't.
The interests are closer than you think. As long as a company doesn't charge outrageous amounts for their products, unrelated to expenses, which, surprise, Apple doesn't (they make about 14% profit), then everything is fine.
If a company didn't attempt to make a profit on each product, they would be derelict. It would mean that only some of their products returned a profit. Very bad business. Even the iTunes music sales return a small profit.
If customers want a strong company, one that can afford to do the R&D required to come out with excellent, new products, they had better hope the company isn't losing money on part of its product stream.
Wow I have to say that my expectations were blown out of the water. They answered every concern I had in both the consumer and enterprise markets save flash support.
When Apple mentioned that they are licensing Microsoft's ActiveSync technology, a couple of questions came to mind:
1) Who ported ActiveSync to Mac OS X (or to the iPhone OS)? Did the Microsoft Mac BU do the port? Did Apple? I would be surprsied if Microsoft actually revealed the source code as part of the licensing agreement.
2) Does the licensing agreement only apply to the iPhone, or will we see an upgrade to Mail.app on Macs that will add Exchange connectivity?
When Apple mentioned that they are licensing Microsoft's ActiveSync technology, a couple of questions came to mind:
1) Who ported ActiveSync to Mac OS X (or to the iPhone OS)? Did the Microsoft Mac BU do the port? Did Apple? I would be surprsied if Microsoft actually revealed the source code as part of the licensing agreement.
2) Does the licensing agreement only apply to the iPhone, or will we see an upgrade to Mail.app on Macs that will add Exchange connectivity?
interesting. i think Mail.app support for Exchange would be HUGE news. i personally don't need it, but it would do a world of good to silence the 'apple no good for corporate users' crowd. at least somewhat.
In addition, to those who think that 30% take for Apple is too much, remember that this is also covering the cost of all of those free apps that Apple will be hosting, with their upgrades etc. That has to be paid for as well, and Apple isn't charging the developers for those. I checked by looking at the presentation.
People should compare it with other revenue share from other mobile phone platforms (not how much from mac distributions or pc distributions). Developers who have their apps on the Nokia Content Discoverer deck, Qualcomm BREW deck, DoCoMo imode deck gets pay more money than Apple's revenue share agreement.
Upfront costs may be higher on the other platforms in terms of certification, but the developers get a more on the revenue share.
Comments
To me the reason for that has always been what I think obvious.. they aren't going to release iChat for the iPhone until the day release iChat 4.0 for Windows, and that "will" happen this year.
You think so? I just don't see a benefit for another multi-IM client on Windows. But if it does come to Windows it will need full MSN and Yahoo support for the Win and Mac versions to make it viable.
Either way, I have no doubt that Adium developers are already working on iAdium.
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.
It doesn't look to be for each app. The certificate is to be able to track the developer in case (s)he does something that isn't proper with their apps that Apple missed upon application.
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
We'll see about the unregistered apps. I'm not sure they will be able to load them.
What has to be remembered is that the only reason why they work now, is because of an unfixed security hole in the iPhone's Safari. Apple, so far, has chosen not to fix that hole, even though they have fixed other security holes.
Want to guess why?
But, once we get the ver. 2 upgrade, with all of the new enterprise goodies, and whatnot, why would Apple leave that gaping, well publicized, security hole, open?
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.
Sure, it would be nice if it were free. You don't have to get the new upgrade, with all the new enterprise features, or the ability to add new programs if you don't want to pay for it.
By the way, tell us which other portable player has upgrades?
You know why you will have to pay for this if you have an iTouch. Stop complaining, you aren't being forced into it.
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.
You can't simply run with it.
Actually, Apple doesn't have to charge this fee. But, if they don't, they have to pay it themselves. It is a bit complex, but the number isn't pulled out of thin air. The charge has to be related to the value of the item being added to the product.
I wish people would stop making a big deal out of it though.
By now, everyone should know that the iPhone and ATv get free updates, and the iTouch has to pay for them.
If it isn't worth it to some people, they have the option of not getting it. I'm not referring to you in particular, but throwing it out in general.
It doesn't look to be for each app. The certificate is to be able to track the developer in case (s)he does something that isn't proper with their apps that Apple missed upon application.
The Q+A and live blogging was ambiguous but the keynote clearly states that it's $99 for access to the SDK and right to post. There seems to be no other fees. This is quite agressive on Apple's part, but people will complain about the price anyway. In fact, I think we had two new posters who were slinging insults left and right earlier who got banned and their posts deleted. Fun fun fun.
I look forward to seeing how RiM, Nokia and MS react to this "practically free" mobile platform. I also wonder wht is going to happen with RiM tomorrow, but it may be too early for the masses to see the storm that is brewing in Cupertino.
At first, I thought it was SOx but upon looking into it it seems unlikely. Now I think it's just a way to cover the costs of development and, of course, to make a profit. iPhone users are paying it for to their carriers who pay Apple. I see nothing unreasonable with charging customers for anything beyond bug fixes.
You're a fool if you think the nominal little charge they have for the touch upgrade is going to come anywhere near the cost of the development for all of this.
They are chargin chump change, just enough to get past the regulators and bean counters.
You're a fool if you think the nominal little charge they have for the touch upgrade is going to come anywhere near the cost of the development for all of this.
They are chargin chump change, just enough to get past the regulators and bean counters.
One word: iPhone
The Q+A and live blogging was ambiguous but the keynote clearly states that it's $99 for access to the SDK and right to post. There seems to be no other fees. This is quite agressive on Apple's part, but people will complain about the price anyway. In fact, I think we had two new posters who were slinging insults left and right earlier who got banned and their posts deleted. Fun fun fun.
I look forward to seeing how RiM, Nokia and MS react to this "practically free" mobile platform. I also wonder wht is going to happen with RiM tomorrow, but it may be too early for the masses to see the storm that is brewing in Cupertino.
I think this goes further than just paying for the right to post. You get the SDK for free, at least the beta.
"Jobs continuing on: Developers have to register with us. For that $99, we give them an electronic certificate that tells us who they are..."
I don't know how much of the real quote that is, though it reads like one. But, the "tells us who they are, sounds more like a tracking device.
I found it.
Here, from Macworlds coverage, is the apparently real, whole quote"
"The developers have to register with us, and for $99 they get an electronic certificate, and that tells us who they are. If they write a malicious app, we can track them down, we can tell their parents, and we will know who they are. And we can turn off the spigot if we need to."
I think this goes further than just paying for the right to post. You get the SDK for free, at least the beta.
Yeah, definitely. So far it seems there is a good accountability system in place and a way for a plethora of free apps to be available. I look forward to Adium and Skype being ready for primetime by June.
PS: They have enable remote wipe with Exchange but that does me no good. I hope someone finds a way to hook into that feature in Mobile OS X so I can send something as a simple as a "specially" written SMS message or use Yahoo's PUSH to activate it incase of loss or theft. Or even contact AT&T to have them send the wipe; we could certainly use more of carrier-manufacturer tie-ins.
PPS: I wonder how long it will be before we start seeing application demos using video captures of the iPhone Simulator popping up on YouTube? Should be interesting.
It's not much, but I do question its necessity, and there's a principe of the thing, it seems like Apple's getting into the habit of nickel-and-diming its customers. Apple's iPod update to let people play games and added better search functionality did not cost anything, but things seem to have changed in the last couple years. The game update allowed people to buy games from Apple. The iTouch update should be able to allow people to buy software from Apple. It seems pretty odd this time around to have to pay money to get the opportunity to pay for software. It would seem that Apple would want to keep the barriers to entry low.
You're not just paying for AppStore. You are paying for Mobile OSX 2.0 and which ever significant app upgrades that come with it. Apple will have likely done enough work to warrant a $20 upgrade.
The iPod has a much simpler OS that likely did not take very much work.
You're not just paying for AppStore. You are paying for Mobile OSX 2.0 and which ever significant app upgrades that come with it. Apple will have likely done enough work to warrant a $20 upgrade.
The iPod has a much simpler OS that likely did not take very much work.
Who knows, it might even be less.
In addition, to those who think that 30% take for Apple is too much, remember that this is also covering the cost of all of those free apps that Apple will be hosting, with their upgrades etc. That has to be paid for as well, and Apple isn't charging the developers for those. I checked by looking at the presentation.
Apple is ALWAYS trying to make a profit. Just keep that in mind, no matter what the level of benevolence appears to be.
But then won't Mac people just call you a conspiracy theorist, accuse you of wearing a tinfoil hat, and ask if you have a gun pointed at your head? Is this one of those "dirty little secrets" which everyone knows about, but is taboo to speak of openly?
They make a profit or the shareholders run away like sheep on fire.
It would seem that the interests of shareholders are different from the interests of actual customers. While customers care about long term support, shareholders care about the company bringing in money any way it can.
It would seem that the interests of shareholders are different from the interests of actual customers. While customers care about long term support, shareholders care about the company bringing in money any way it can.
Actually, they aren't.
The interests are closer than you think. As long as a company doesn't charge outrageous amounts for their products, unrelated to expenses, which, surprise, Apple doesn't (they make about 14% profit), then everything is fine.
If a company didn't attempt to make a profit on each product, they would be derelict. It would mean that only some of their products returned a profit. Very bad business. Even the iTunes music sales return a small profit.
If customers want a strong company, one that can afford to do the R&D required to come out with excellent, new products, they had better hope the company isn't losing money on part of its product stream.
Weak companies can't offer strong support.
Stockholders have the same interests.
1) Who ported ActiveSync to Mac OS X (or to the iPhone OS)? Did the Microsoft Mac BU do the port? Did Apple? I would be surprsied if Microsoft actually revealed the source code as part of the licensing agreement.
2) Does the licensing agreement only apply to the iPhone, or will we see an upgrade to Mail.app on Macs that will add Exchange connectivity?
When Apple mentioned that they are licensing Microsoft's ActiveSync technology, a couple of questions came to mind:
1) Who ported ActiveSync to Mac OS X (or to the iPhone OS)? Did the Microsoft Mac BU do the port? Did Apple? I would be surprsied if Microsoft actually revealed the source code as part of the licensing agreement.
2) Does the licensing agreement only apply to the iPhone, or will we see an upgrade to Mail.app on Macs that will add Exchange connectivity?
interesting. i think Mail.app support for Exchange would be HUGE news. i personally don't need it, but it would do a world of good to silence the 'apple no good for corporate users' crowd. at least somewhat.
Who knows, it might even be less.
In addition, to those who think that 30% take for Apple is too much, remember that this is also covering the cost of all of those free apps that Apple will be hosting, with their upgrades etc. That has to be paid for as well, and Apple isn't charging the developers for those. I checked by looking at the presentation.
People should compare it with other revenue share from other mobile phone platforms (not how much from mac distributions or pc distributions). Developers who have their apps on the Nokia Content Discoverer deck, Qualcomm BREW deck, DoCoMo imode deck gets pay more money than Apple's revenue share agreement.
Upfront costs may be higher on the other platforms in terms of certification, but the developers get a more on the revenue share.