An App Store For iPhone Software 531
Steve Jobs demonstrated a new "App Store" that will be pushed out to all iPhones in June. It's available now in beta. This will be the exclusive avenue developers will use to get their iPhone apps, written to the newly released SDK, to customers. Developers will get 70% of the proceeds from sales of their goods on the App store, with no further charges for hosting, credit-card processing, etc. Jobs called this "the best deal going to distribute applications in the mobile space."
not a free service for iPod touch users (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What about free apps? (Score:4, Interesting)
Mr. Carmack are you still around? (Score:5, Interesting)
With his latest interest in portable gaming, I hope he could see some value in the iPhone/touch platform.
The screen on the phone is phenomenal (in terms of pixels/inch), touch gestures and accelerometers should add quite a few new exciting additions to the gaming world.
I hope he has an intel Mac and time to download the beta of the SDK and try it out.
With Doom, or even Quake on my iPod touch, I don't think I'd ever leave the bathroom at work. (80% serious, 20% joking)
Beta SDK is out Now (Score:3, Interesting)
A few other notes:
1. SDK is free to download, but you'll have to pay $99 to be able to submit your App (regardless of how much it'll cost).
2. App Store seems to be the only way you can get Apps on the phone (you can download straight from the phone, or through computer).
3. VOIP [gizmodo.com] will be allowed but only WiFi VOIP.
4. Spore for iPhone? [gizmodo.com] Fuck yeah!
What a strange angle (Score:5, Interesting)
The app store is news, as it the 70/30 split, but what about these submissions:
SDK features:
OpenGL Games:
MS Exchange:
Or mine:
It would appear the slashdot editor simply went with the submission with the most "Apple is teh EEEEVILL" slant.
Re:iPhone SDK, Enterprise Support Announced (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Yes, free apps allowed (Score:4, Interesting)
1) Anyone can buy a certificate for $50, and then sign anything they like, including open-source programs they've downloaded. I think it's reasonable to require people to do this.
2) Apple will be providing a iPhone emulator, so people can still run your application, just not on their iPhone.
However, IANAL. I'm positive if there is a problem, the FSF can be expected to kick up a fuss before the final release of applications.
Re:FYI (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple also will allow you to notify your purchasers and update your apps on their handsets through an automated system tied into the store; this was something that was really lacking on Palm IMHO. A new version would come out of some little helper widget and you'd never know since you'd never visit the site again.
Re:Should we submit the source code or the binary? (Score:3, Interesting)
A few users report that your app is doing bad things (or unauthorized) and apple revokes your key and removes it from the store.
Do not pass go without paying another $99 and making up a fake identity for your next time around.
Re:except direct sales (Score:5, Interesting)
Yea. Apple takes care of notifying users of updates. Apple takes care of bandwidth and server costs. Apple takes care of anti-piracy. Sounds rather nice to me. I'd be willing to give up only 30% of my possible profit to avoid all those different headaches. If your application becomes popular, those things can get complex and expensive.
It will be interesting to see what some of the Mac Developer Bloggers think about this (Daniel Jalkut [red-sweater.com], John Gruber [daringfireball.net], and Wil Shipley [wilshipley.com] for example).
Re:What about personal apps? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:It's an accounting thing (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Marginally sweet... (Score:-1, Interesting)
Re:Distribution costs $99 (Score:4, Interesting)
The SDK is free right?
So what is to stop the development of a site where people can upload their SDK-developed code for other people who have the SDK to download and install on their iPods.
The install might be a bit fiddly for non-developers, but nothing that a bit of Automator and Applescript couldn't make simple, I'd wager.
Re:Free apps are Free (Score:3, Interesting)
They are free. You just need to pay $99 to be able to sign your application for distribution. Quite honestly $99 is actually cheaper than some places I have seen for a digital signature.
Re:What about free apps? (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple, I am a fan, and most importantly, a paying customer. However, give up the MS-like control. Charging developers $100 for a cert then telling them that you are going to take 30% of the sales? Lame, freaking Lame.
Do you think so? I don't. For that 30% you get a distribution network, a way to notify your users of updates, and free advertising via the integrated download client. Seems pretty fair to me. And the IDE and SDK itself are free. IIRC Palm charges charges similarly, and you have to buy the IDE. (I don't know about RIM.)
SETI@Phone, Folding@Phone (Score:3, Interesting)
Now that they've documented things, the roadblocks are gone from the GUI, and understandable battery and "on external power" notifications will let me know when not to run.
Woo hoo!
-- Terry
Re:Distribution costs $99 (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Suspicions are worng (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:It's an accounting thing (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:iPhone SDK, Enterprise Support Announced (Score:2, Interesting)
In other words, Power PC for Mac is dead. Use your PPC on Mac as long as you can/want. Just don't bitch about nothing or no one supporting it.
Hell, I still have a Commodore 64 that works great. I am not bitching about the lack of Far Cry for it.
It is Intel having i386 archaic instruction set to support, not PowerPC. It was designed with 64bit in mind, from _START_. That is why no PowerPC users lived issues with 64bit trastition. So, don't use i386 as an example of how old, outdated power platform is. It isn't. It is just Apple's direction to portable market and handheld not fit for 64bit PPC970+ processors.
C64? i386? You know, companies like Microsoft, IBM made a unbreakable place on enterprise market by supporting "not so fashion" chips for insane amounts of time, decades in some cases. One of the most famous, most advanced, most complex Applications on Mac Market was coded on a G4 mini in its entire. That developer I won't name and many others are much more serious than Apple and try to support things down to G3 because they CAN. Apple chooses not to.
If this attitude of Apple doesn't change my next workstation and home network will be something trustable, not dropped support because of shadowy agreements with chip companies and there is a chance to go "Pure GNU". Some call it a lame, white box hand made PC.
BTW- Nokia supports developers to code their stuff on Linux and FreeBSD. They still give minimal but trustable support to windows 98. That is the "evil" Symbian vendor for you. That is why their and microsoft's word is taken in enterprise market.
Re:Does this lock out trialware? (Score:2, Interesting)
Or you could just put up a version for free that required a serial number, and direct people to your site for it. Although I imagine Apple might delist your app if you do it that way (that and they're providing the whole charge service for you.)
Re:Mr. Carmack are you still around? (Score:5, Interesting)
The iTunes distribution channel is really a more important aspect than a lot of people understand. The ability to distribute larger applications than the over-the-air limits and effectively market your title with more than a dozen character deck name, combined with the reasonable income split make this look like a very interesting market. This type of developer / customer interaction is probably the wave of the future for mobile devices, it will be interesting to see how quickly the other players can react. Based on our experiences with the carriers, I am betting not very quickly.
John Carmack
Re:It's an accounting thing (Score:2, Interesting)
Signing is here, now what? (Score:4, Interesting)
Ever since Apple released Leopard, with its application signing framework, the writing has been on the wall. Most people expect Microsoft to make a similar move. I think Apple is missing being innovators on the correct side of an important trend. Application signing could be the best thing to come to PC and mobile security since firewalls. But will it be another walled garden?
One of the things that really strikes home is the ban on pornographic applications hosted by Apple. Historically, porn has been right on the leading edge of the software and networking fields. Apple's arbitrary restriction in this regard highlights a real issue with the way Apple, and probably everyone else will go about this. They're creating a signing system that only they control and thus they have all the responsibility and are a single point of failure (intentional or accidental).
Here is what I really, really would like to see created. How about an open application signing framework and protocol. Anyone can run a server that provides software downloads, manages updates, checksum/verification and assigns levels of trust and ACLs describing what an application should be doing. Combine the software with a good package manager for whatever platform, a good Mandatory Access Control system for a given OS, a registration and purchasing GUI, and a GUI for users to assign trust levels to servers/organizations.
Suppose if you wanted to buy an Adobe application, you could go to your computer and navigate to their Web site, click a link and it would add their server to your package manager. From there you could download packages, pay for them, register them, install them, keep them updated, pay for updates, verify the software on your machine was unmodified, automatically download an ACL to restrict the software from messing with your machine (run in a jail, or with some subset of permissions from running as root to running in a VM that resets itself every use and has no internet access), and decide how much you trust Adobe as a vendor. You could go Symantec's Web page click a link, pay them a fee, and get ACLs and whitelists/blacklists for software from their service, which you could decide if you trust more than Adobe. Any software vendor be it freeware or payware, open or closed could run a server or use a shared server (sourceforge). Ideally these packages you download would be something like GNUStep, expanded to include an ACL, optional source code, binaries for multiple platforms, and a reference to the authoritative server for updating that application. Apple could run their server and Macs and iPhones could subscribe to their server by default, but users could still add other vendors' servers so people could get any applications without Apple being held responsible for the consequences. Projects like ClamAV could host free ACLs and whitlelists/blacklists for those of us who don't want to pay. The best part is, you would not even need to rank servers individually, if you had multiple servers you could allow them to "vote" on how much to trust a given application.
Ahh, well. That is probably just my utopian idealism. In all reality Apple will host a server which has all sorts of restrictions and is completely closed. Microsoft will follow suit with their own closed system, and Linux will have no such system for another decade and will never make real inroads into the desktop space either.
iPhone developer agreement (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not really all that unusual, I guess. But the knowledge that I just agreed to a document that says, in part, "Hey, Apple! Feel free to rip off this cool idea of mine!" is a bummer.
Yes, I know. I did agree.
Ready for business. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Why is that a problem? (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think it actually runs it on the phone, only uses it as a display/touch screen.
btw. Don't take much from the slides... having played with the SDK it's nothing like what was demoed - the stuff they were talking about probably won't hit until June.
Re:It's an accounting thing (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Triple dipping into the jar might hurt Apple? (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft is taking a cut of the software on the Windows Media Phones only because they only have software. Except for their mice and keyboards, their ventures into hardware kind of suck, so far. Windows CE, Windows Mobile, etc., has been a gigantic money-loser to this day, and the iPhone blew past them in less than a year on the market.
Yes, you'll have to sell through iTunes, the second-largest seller of music in the US, and the one that works easiest with the dominant player on the market anyway. If you are a freeware developer, you pay NOTHING. If you want to charge for your software, you control the pricing, and Apple takes 30%, with which they pay for a huge server farm, credit-card charges, bandwidth, marketing -- you're in the most popular e-store already, and you'll be listed prominently, and if your app gets Apple publicity, that's better than most could ever afford. Does Apple make money on its 99c tracks? A penny or two, is the most common response. They will take a cut on software, but so do theatrical agents, and a good one is worth his weight in gold, because they keep your money flow going. In fact, software developers now have roughly the same terms as the record labels. Not bad, I say.
Value to the consumer to being able to buy an app from the iPhone, and to be pretty sure someone has gone through it enough that there's no virus or malware or incompetence there? Priceless.
Will other platforms catch up to them eventually? Yeah, probably. That's called competition. But they'll be, as was made clear today, a very moving target.