Apple cuts off unofficial avenue for rebuffed iPhone apps

12346

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 136
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post


    10% Adsense



    You misread, seemingly deliberately. For me, CC merchant fees + adsense + hosting fees TOTAL about 10%. The base fee for my transactions is a dime, not a quarter. I almost don't get requests for returns (maybe 0.1%), I don't know if Apple refunds money anyway. That said, I'm not selling $0.99 items either, but Apple's system is highly automated.
  • Reply 102 of 136
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post


    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.



    The problem with that article and similar ones that came out this week are that those numbers go up and down a lot week to week, largely based on what is released that week. The article takes two data points and tries to spin it as a collapse while ignoring the track record.



    This feed has articles that show the numbers for each week going back about six months:



    http://www.engadgethd.com/tag/VideoScan/
  • Reply 103 of 136
    They can scream NDA all they want. You can't send someone a letter and first in the letter claim NDA. You can tell them up front "if you want correspondence from us you must agree to an NDA". But they can't change the rules this far after the fact.



    Apple: really showing how much they suck. Pass the Kool-Aid?.
  • Reply 104 of 136
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Fairly View Post


    Apple: really showing how much they suck. Pass the Kool-Aid™.



    Geeeez, Don't let the door kick you on the way out. You don't like Apple don't buy Apple. Then you'll have more time to whine about Microsoft.
  • Reply 105 of 136
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    The problem with that article and similar ones that came out this week are that those numbers go up and down a lot week to week, largely based on what is released that week. The article takes two data points and tries to spin it as a collapse while ignoring the track record.



    The track record doesn't say anything different. Averaging it all out DVD is around 90% and Blu-ray around 10%.
  • Reply 106 of 136
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    The track record doesn't say anything different. Averaging it all out DVD is around 90% and Blu-ray around 10%.



    But adding BR doesn't forsake DVD. You can play DVDs on a BR player. Burn them too, AFAIK.



    How are they going to justify $2,000-$2700 prices with DVDs as your optical drive? Sorry, but even though optical drives are less important most buyers are going to want BR optical at that price.
  • Reply 107 of 136
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    The track record doesn't say anything different. Averaging it all out DVD is around 90% and Blu-ray around 10%.



    Yes it does. Please consider it just a bit more. That article was taking a snapshot and trying to play it as a format diminishing because of one week-to-week drop, especially when it's happened a few times over the past few months when the more popular movies get released, then goes down a few percent on the "lul" weeks. That's a lot like looking at Apple's stock this week from last week and saying Apple is in trouble.



    A 10% share really isn't bad. So far the trend is pretty good, the average was around 5% earlier this year, and we got a few 12% peaks more recently.
  • Reply 108 of 136
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by backtomac View Post


    But adding BR doesn't forsake DVD. You can play DVDs on a BR player. Burn them too, AFAIK.



    How are they going to justify $2,000-$2700 prices with DVDs as your optical drive? Sorry, but even though optical drives are less important most buyers are going to want BR optical at that price.



    It's not about forsaking DVD. DVD sales are themselves slowing. The market is depending less on optical media. The price of the notebook has little to do with the optical drive. More to do with the $500 processors the notebook is using.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    A 10% share really isn't bad. So far the trend is pretty good, the average was around 5% earlier this year, and we got a few 12% peaks more recently.



    BR doesn't offer the same degree of advancment that DVD brought. I think BR needs to be quick and decisive in replacing DVD. Their is too much competition today. I don't see much excitment in the general market for BR.
  • Reply 109 of 136
    Consumer Electronic BluRay @$149 that supports current DVD player standards, with HDMI, yada yada and:







    For Example:



    http://www.onecall.com/ProductDetails.aspx?id=89657







    Cut this from the current $299 [down from it's original $499] to $149 and they will fly off the shelves.





    Computer BluRay ROM/DVD-DL Burner @$99 will sky rocket sales.



    For Example:

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16827129016







    Drop it from it's current $179.99 to $99 and these will fly off the shelves.
  • Reply 110 of 136
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Fairly View Post


    They can scream NDA all they want. You can't send someone a letter and first in the letter claim NDA. You can tell them up front "if you want correspondence from us you must agree to an NDA". But they can't change the rules this far after the fact.



    Apple: really showing how much they suck. Pass the Kool-Aid™.



    Here's your bucket. Start shoveling in that barf. You either don't develop for the iPhone or can't read your legal agreements. Every communication from the day you sign on and accept the terms are under NDA.



    Need a spoon or do you just go straight from the bucket?
  • Reply 111 of 136
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    I don't think it's so certain. I've seen and heard plenty of programmers refer to HTML and XML as code.



    An example from Peach-Pit:

    http://www.peachpit.com/store/produc...sbn=0321559673



    I've found quite a few articles on O'Reilly using "code" with XML.



    Personally I disagree with that usage; *ML files might be source files but they aren't code in the way that Javascript or Pascal are, IMO. Regardless of my opinion on that, this statement:



    Quote:

    You do realize that reading and interpreting virtually any data feed: HTML, XML, or any other formatted data file is effectively running interpreted third-party code?



    is incorrect. HTML is translated into a document that might contain embedded code, but you don't run HTML, you display it. You might as well claim that playing an MP2 video stream is running third-party code, which it patently isn't.
  • Reply 112 of 136
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post






    Sorry mdriftmeyer, but I think that it WRITES AND READS DVD/CD and only READS Blu-Ray discs http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16827129016
  • Reply 113 of 136
    Wait a minute....



    The Ad Hoc distribution system was designed for distributing applications to a set of registered iPhones (up to 100) for testing purpose but also in situations like in a university where a teacher wants to deploy an application for teaching purpose to his students. So the main purpose of Ad Hoc is to share some applications among a limited number of people by email or by posting them on a web site or server, not to sell applications in order to bypass the App store.



    This is totally against the iPhone developer program agreement that the podcaster's developer agreed and signed when he joined the iPhone developer program.



    I am developer and i joined the program, it was clearly stated in the usage conditions that any distribution of applications by means of selling it via Ad Hoc was not allowed. So why it is surprising for some trolls here that Apple takes action to stop the illegal thing that Sokirynsky is doing? Illegal regarding to Apple agreement which again he signed and was agree with.



    So now, one can argue about the reasons why Apple has rejected podcaster, but i find difficult to argue against the reasons why Apple has stopped Sokirynsky to distribute Podcaster via Ad Hoc. It was simply not allowed and Sokirynsky knew it when he did it.



    No one is forcing Sokirynsky to obey the rules, but if he agreed that he does (and he did by joining the iPhone developer program) then he should respect the rules of the agreement that he signed for.



    Many people are telling non sense because they don't know anything about what it is about, and what are the rules that developer signed for when they develop for iPhone.



    We hear a lot things about this App store rejection policy and a lot of accusations against Apple, most of the time incorrect or based on wrong facts. I do agree that Apple needs to clear up the issues and states more clearly what it is going on and what is their policy for applications like Podcaster. It it does not, it can't help Apple and a lot of misunderstanding will continue which ultimately can hurt the platform.



    But i do believe that one should separate the real issues that Apple has to address, to declarations which are purely sensational.



    Again, this issue with the Ad Hoc distribution is actually a non-issue as it was clearly stated by Apple that this distribution mechanism is not for selling applications. Period. You agree, fine, you don't, then you don't sign for it.
  • Reply 114 of 136
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post


    When the iPhone SDK was launched in March, the only way a developer could distribute apps to all iPhone and iPod Touch users was (...) via iTunes.



    Undeniably true. My memory was jogged about this fact a few posts ago when you reminded me of the fact that the SDK announcement event and the WWDC keynote. Thank you.



    Quote:

    ...and still is...



    In that iTunes is the only authorized vehicle through which any App can be synched between your computer and your iPod/iPod touch, this is also undeniably true 100% of the time. However, this does not currently correspond to 100% of the time having to be distributed through the App Store, which had been your original assertion. (The University program is a perfect illustration of this fact.)



    Quote:

    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.



    That sounds reasonable, but it completely fails to contribute to your assertion that the App Store was the only vehicle of App distribution (as opposed to installation). In fact, it argues against that very assertion.



    Also, Apple's iPhone Developer Program website says quite clearly that ad-hoc distribution is available with both the Enterprise and the Standard program. It is listed under a totally separate heading than their description of the Enterprise deployment option, and separately from their description of the University program.



    Quote:

    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.



    (Emphasis mine)

    They only way you can distribute to all iPhone and iPod touch users is through the App Store. But Apple's own website says that if you just want to distribute to a subset of 100 individual iPod touch or iPhone users, then the App Store can be bypassed.





    Now, I don't mean to say that Apple was necessarily in the wrong in this case. I just wanted to clarify that I thought you were making a misleading statement about the possibility of Ad-Hoc app distribution in general.



    The iPhone SDK license agreement lists some things that are off-limit for Apps in general, and if Apple discovers that your Apps are doing some of those off-limit things, then they have every right to revoke your license to the SDK. If you lose your license to the SDK, then it stands to reason that you'd no longer be able to digitally sign your Apps, and that therefore Ad-Hoc distribution would no longer work.



    Personally, I suspect this has much more to do with the distributor in question having written a program with functionality that Apple considered to be in violation of the SDK's license agreement. Apple first tried to inform the author that his App was non-conforming, thereby giving him a chance to bring his program into conformance. Instead, the author continued to actively try to distribute the non-conforming application; Apple simply exercised the right it always had to revoke the SDK license.



    This is not a denial of the ability of a developer to use Ad-Hoc distribution in general, but is rather a reaffirmation of the limits Apple has placed on the ways that that Apps are allowed to behave no matter how they're distributed.
  • Reply 115 of 136
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    It's not about forsaking DVD. DVD sales are themselves slowing. The market is depending less on optical media. The price of the notebook has little to do with the optical drive. More to do with the $500 processors the notebook is using.



    I agree that the market is less dependent on optical media and its importance to consumers is less but BR is still the latest and greatest.



    A MBP without a BR drive will see its sales plummet at Apple's current prices.
  • Reply 116 of 136
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post


    (Emphasis mine)

    They only way you can distribute to all iPhone and iPod touch users is through the App Store. But Apple's own website says that if you just want to distribute to a subset of 100 individual iPod touch or iPhone users, then the App Store can be bypassed.



    Careful. What I said was:



    "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."



    In other words, if you develop an app and want to distribute it re Enterprise or Ad Hoc, you must use iTunes. I said or implied nothing about using or having to use the App Store.
  • Reply 117 of 136
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by backtomac View Post


    A MBP without a BR drive will see its sales plummet at Apple's current prices.



    I've seen no correlation between computer sales and BR sales. Where have you seen it?
  • Reply 118 of 136
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post


    Sorry mdriftmeyer, but I think that it WRITES AND READS DVD/CD and only READS Blu-Ray discs http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16827129016



    Also OS X doesn't support BR DRM. Without that their is no way to watch BR movies on a Mac.
  • Reply 119 of 136
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    I've seen no correlation between computer sales and BR sales. Where have you seen it?



    Time will tell.
  • Reply 120 of 136
    Yay Apple! Yay ANY COMPANY that defends itself from pirates and hackers.



    After just two weeks of using my original iPhone I knew that I would never want to be without one again. I have come to depend on this "computer-in-my-pocket" so much that I absolutely want Apple to maintain very strict control over who gets to put what on my most valuable accessory.



    No wonder pirates don't like the App Store. Good ridden to them all and good luck to the Google phone users who will get them. They are more than welcome to "develop" for jailbroken iPhones too, since that's where they really belong - not in the legitimate App Store.



    As an iPhone customer I am strongly depending on Apple to maintain high standards and safety when it comes to allowing 3rd party applications access to my device. If not Apple, then just who exactly?



    And it's foolish to expect Apple to carry competing hardware/software in it's very own store (even a virtual one)? Nobody does that! Let's face it, some developers were just hoping for a free ride on the iPhone's success. Apple's success. Geesh.





    p.s. (As a side note - It was my understanding that the whole "ad-hoc" distribution method was intended to allow businesses to distribute their software for the iPhone just to their own employees, and not the general public. Not as a second form of commercial distribution for an un-approved application...)
Sign In or Register to comment.