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)
It's an accounting thing (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's an accounting thing (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It's an accounting thing (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's an accounting thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's an accounting thing (Score:5, Informative)
1) Web browser
2) Flash (real one)
3) Windows Media
4) Skype/IM (thin ones)
5) Live, streaming radio
6) Photo capability (yes, with USB)
7) GPS (in Japan)
8) Digital TV
They were all free of charge. As you know, PSP (like all consoles) is way expensive than it is sold to you. It is very similar to iPhone on that purpose. They expect you to buy games/movies etc. to cover the real cost later.
Of course with a consumer majority like this (not you, in general), they can even sell the update for $50 and actually succeed.
Re:It's an accounting thing (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It's an accounting thing (Score:4, Insightful)
Developer: "Look, I give you this application for free, you just need to use xxxxx hack to install it"
User: "I didn't see your application on iTunes, go away you haxor!"
BTW, is this the same slashdot where trolltech was repeatedly accused for being "evil" trying to sell their SDK to commercial/closed source (some billion dollar) vendors? Are those people writing those comments taking a holiday or not very interested? Or if you are Apple dictating $100 even to freeware/opensource, 30% Soprano commission from a single store, dictating the _CPU_ and the OS to develop apps is OK?
Still the same (Score:5, Informative)
That's because the 800XL was too bulky to carry. I can knock on the door of my friends, iPhone in hand, and show them my cool application.
I'm perfectly OK with the 70/30 thing because the Palm model sucked. It was easy to write apps but very hard to get anyone to look at them. Now you have an AppStore - right on the phone itself! Is it worth 30% of your gross profits to have 1000% greater sales, along with someone else managing ALL of the infrastructure related to hosting and delivery? Hell yes!
Re:It's an accounting thing (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep, that's right, just like we had to pay an upgrade fee when we got the first version of iTunes with the iTMS, and then a year or so ago had to pay an upgrade fee for a version of iTunes that had a built-in movie store.
I have to admit that I doubt the "obscure accounting rule" explanation has ever been true. It certainly isn't true when Apple is pushing something they're making revenues from like a music, movie, and now software, store. But I don't think it's true for goodwill type freebies either. I think the truth is Apple is cheap. This is the same Apple that was charging $20 for "Quicktime Pro" for all those years. This is about revenue generation, not about accounting.
And exactly how much did you pay for iTunes? $100? $50? $20?
It was, and is, available as a free download from Apple. Since Apple didn't generate any revenue for giving you iTunes they don't have to charge you to give you a new/updated version. It's as simple as that.
Before someone brings this up, the fact that iTunes is used to sync to iPods, iPhone and iPod Touch is completely irrelevant. It's entirely possible to use iTunes without buying anything from Apple. Sure you won't be able to take your music or videos with you, but they work just dandy on your computer.
Re:It's an accounting thing (Score:5, Informative)
The amount of revenue that Apple sees from third-party software sales will translate into probably very little if any profit when you figure in the bandwidth and them eating the credit card fees, though that remains to be seen. In any case, third party software (free or otherwise) adds value to the iPod Touch and as such it's in Apple's best interest to make it available to as many of their customers as possible. The $20 or whatever it will be per iPod Touch would probably be outweighed by the small amount of profit they'd see. You can be certain that the negative feelings they get from charging are outweighed by the money they see - that kind of thing is certain to put off potential buyers thinking they'll get nickeled and dimed.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not defending Apple here. But I don't think it's some conspiracy to milk a few more bucks out of people either. To my understanding of SOX combined with the grade I got in accounting, it seems to be a legitimate requirement.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And true or not (I have no reason to think you know Apple's accounting structure) you have proved my point - Apple could have done the same thing with the iTouch as they did for the AppleTV, but (according to you) they CHOSE to use a different accounting method and hence CHOSE to charge the customer more over time for new features.
Re:It's an accounting thing (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What about free apps? (Score:2, Redundant)
Yes, free apps allowed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Why is that a problem? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah. If only there were a way to know the answers to these questions. Apple really should have said whether or or not you could debug and test on your iphone in the development kit. Ideally, they would have covered this around 10:30 am and had a 6 foot tall slide
Re:Why is that a problem? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (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: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've not gotten that far yet (still trying to figure out how to submit a cert so that I can get the app deployed to the phone) but what you say here is very unlikely. Think of how much work it would be to build a whole application that would forward every possible input from the iPhone, including all sensor data, back to an application really running on your computer?
Given that GDB has been doing remote debugging for dec
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see why not. They just have to figure out how to get it loaded and running on their iPhone, either by reverse engineering Apple's interface or buying their own cert; niether of which is your responsibility under the GPL.
Re: (Score:2)
Just make sure to strip the cert out.
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:Yes, free apps allowed (Score:4, Informative)
Nokia (in fact, Symbian boards) solution is: Once your app is freeware, you can submit your source to certificate company, (BTW SDK is free) and if it is not doing low level things, it is matter of days you get a free code signing certificate. For very deep level running software, it may take some time. The cost is $0 in this case. Hosting? There are various places, even S60.com advertising good apps for free. Open source is at usual sourceforge, freshmeat etc.
If there are any Symbian developers, can they post as AC about the share handango.com etc. gets from their application sales? I am near sure it is not at level of 30%.
Difference is scale, and platform (Score:3, Insightful)
But that's a per app fee, and no no offense to Verizon but who the hell actually uses the Get It Now store? And then what are you developing an app for, a tiny screen with pitiful graphics capabilities and the most primitive of input options at hand.
With the iPhone you only pay once and can develop a billion applications. Then you are distributing them on a platform that people have actually shown make use of the network and browser (vi
Re:Following the leader won't make you a leader (Score:4, Insightful)
You have no idea if Apple's signing program will have any of the problems you lay out. Furthermore, for most applications why on earth would you want or need to run as root?
As a developer myself, I am THRILLED with what was demonstrated is it went far beyond what I thought they would have right out of the gate. Why would you want or need XCode to run ON the iPhone when you can run an app on the iPhone and debug it remotely (along with monitoring performance) from your desktop? That is the perfect development setup for small devices. The emulator is nice as well for quick things, but really running your trial app on the phone is key and Apple allows for that. As for how you could do pinch - I don't know how the emulator works but it should be just as easy as selecting a gesture to apply and clicking the mouse on the simulator screen (though again, you can just test on your real phone).
I too would like to see a bluetooth keyboard driver, but that's a totally separate issue from the dev kit stuff. Unhappy you can't do system work on the phone? You are by far in the minority on this, because most people just want to be able to write applications.
Re:What about free apps? (Score:5, Funny)
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.)
Re:What about free apps? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What about free apps? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What about free apps? (Score:4, Interesting)
What about personal apps? (Score:2, Troll)
Hmmm... iHacking we will go, iHacking we will go.......
MadCow
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Free (Score:5, Insightful)
Well... now I'm excited
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Wake me up when I can just give users a download, from my website, either directly to their iPhone or through iTunes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't write them. I'm not interested in your Quality of Service guarantees when your app breaks or has backdoors that allow nasty viral apps to slip through. Are you going to enjoy being in court?
Re:Free (Score:4, Insightful)
Here, go read. [apple.com] Find me a newer one if you like, but I can pretty much guarantee it's going to have something like Section 6 and Section 7.
The only difference is, with Apple, it's very likely you'll have to pay for it, or have advertising served by it, as I can't even submit an app (which they can still refuse) without paying something.
iPhone SDK, Enterprise Support Announced (Score:5, Informative)
Apple revealed details of the iPhone SDK today. Apps will be developed using XCode and the new Cocoa Touch framework, and will be distributed by Apple either via an application on the phone or through iTunes. Developers set the cost of their applications and keep 70%, although "free" is also an option. (Not all applications will be distributed: "Porn, malicious apps, ones that invade privacy.") When asked about VOIP, Jobs replied: "We will only stop VOIP over cell networks, but not WiFi." Corporations can also privately distribute applications to their employees. AOL demoed an AIM client, and an iPhone version of the upcoming game Spore was also demoed. The iPhone is also gaining enhanced enterprise capabilities, including Exchange and Cisco VPN support, remote wiping, as well as certificates and identities.
Re:iPhone SDK, Enterprise Support Announced (Score:5, Funny)
In unrelated news, a demo of the upcoming Duke Nukem Forever Mobile was demoed.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Good deal, how about version control? (Score:2, Insightful)
You are notified of new versions. (Score:5, Informative)
Sooo - let me get this straight... (Score:2, Funny)
Oh wait - it's Apple. Carry on.
Full disclosure - I've been called an Apple fanboi before.
Free apps are Free (Score:2)
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Example: The App Zapper [appzapper.com]. Yes, Apple forgot to include an uninstaller with their OS, or a standard way for app developers to include one. No, dragging the app to the Trash doesn't quite "uninstall". And yes, that is a shareware model.
Yes, a shareware model. In 2008. For essential system software.
Now, the app store here does allow free downloads, so it's not exactly relevant to this article, but I can see why there would be confusion.
Re:Sooo - let me get this straight... (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess you don't realize this, but most Windows uninstallers do nothing more than reverse the install process; files created by the application after it was installed (preferences, cache, etc.) are not removed by the uninstaller. In other words, the net effect of Windows uninstall is the same as dragging an application to the trash.
Windows could use a tool like App Zapper (and I think there are a few).
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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
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!
And struggling to stay up from demand (Score:3, Informative)
Of interest is that there is a separate Enterprise development program that costs more to join - $300 instead of $99. I could not reach the page describing the differences.
Also new in June (Score:2)
FYI (Score:5, Informative)
I used to develop & sell software for PalmOS.
The IDE was $500, plus $150/year to upgrade.
The major reseller I used wanted 40%, for a lower percentage they'd shove you in the back of the bus. I had my own web store set up separately, but literally got zero (nil, nada) sales from it. Mobile users tend to shop at specific sites. Without their own reputation, the little guys have to lean on the reputation of resellers (i.e. it's credible b/c it's being sold by them).
30% off the top isn't great, but it also doesn't require hosting, fulfillment, or anything else. Just ship them a binary and they send you a check in the mail each month until people stop buying (or an ABI change breaks your binary). I don't know how refunds are handled (or allowed at all), or documentation or support either, really.
Still, any info on what we can put on our own devices? I'm not interested in going back into mobile space anytime soon, just looking for a phone I can hack on personally. The SDK here is nice, but I'm still leaning towards the new openmoko when it comes out.
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.
No apps that invade privacy? (Score:2)
Marginally sweet... (Score:5, Insightful)
IT sounds like the limitations on the SDK are not as drastic as I feared, but I strongly suspect that apple will limit ichat type clients though. Those would kill the golden goose that is SMS.
The more limiting the SDK is, the more vibrant the jailbroken app community will be.
I'm waiting for the Apple servers to recover from the melt-down and I'll be downloading the SDK. Looks like a geeky evening for me.
Apps the iPhone needs:
MMS: WTF apple? This was obvious...
A Calculator that doesn't suck: RPN and trig functions etc. No more Dollar store Calc.
Chat client that uses wifi AND wireless data.
Sheldon
Suspicions are worng (Score:5, Informative)
They demoed AIM on stage for goodness sakes! They are even allowing VOIP apps (though admittedly only over WiFi, not EDGE).
Re:Suspicions are worng (Score:5, Informative)
Though that is doubtless a revenue protection measure, VOIP would never work over EDGE anyway. In my experience (using VOIP on my Nokia), even 3.5G isn't really quick enough and latencies are so high as to render it practically unusable. Limited processing power doubtless also plays a part.
Re:Marginally sweet... (Score:5, Informative)
A Calculator that doesn't suck: RPN and trig functions etc. No more Dollar store Calc.
Reason enough to own an iPhone: Pick your poison [google.com].
re: chat clients don't kill SMS though (Score:3, Insightful)
With instant messaging, delivery is far less reliable. Typically, I
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.
iPod Touch users will have to pay? (Score:2)
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
Rotary Dial Interface (Score:3, Funny)
First thing I'll buy: a rotary-dial interface [wired.com] that uses gestures to dial! No cop-out touch-sensitive numbers. It has to rotate with my finger as I pull it around, then snap back and enter that number.
Everyone always jokes about this, but it would be so frickin cool. Retro is the new black.
wifely quote (Score:3, Funny)
wife, "you'd think they would prepare for this sort of thing. "
me, "there's no preparing for the onslaught of demand"
wife, "then they should setup more computers for this, they make the f'ing things."
me: speechless...
On the bright side for developers (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:iPhone developer agreement (Score:4, Informative)
That last bit about "reasonable patents and copyrights" says you still own your code, and Apple can't use it directly without licensing it. Sure, they can spend some of their own development resources writing their own version of a program if yours happens to become popular, but so can every other software house out there.
You couldn't be more wrong (Score:5, Informative)
It's basically the best scenario you could have hoped for as a developer.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Just because there is a simulator, does not mean you cannot also load the app onto the phone directly - they showed a demo of an app being pushed to the phone and then also being debugged (from the Mac side) while it ran, including gathering profiling data. It's basically the best scenario you could have hoped for as a developer.
If that's true, I stand corrected, but that raises a different issue. Since that's the case, it will be a matter of (little) time before the iPhone hacking community is able to use that same deature to upload apps to iPhone, thus bypassing iTunes Store. It would be an alternate way to crack the phone open (that would necessarily have to survive updates).
Re:except direct sales (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, I didn't read the details so maybe apple will prevent developers from selling their apps direct AND going through the App store
It's kind of like the Record Labels and Recording Artists. The only difference being that recording artists don't get to keep 70% of their sales and they usually take huge cash advances to record their albums that they have to pay back with absolutely no guarantee that they'll sell enough records to pay it back plus they're in a contract that promises the label X number of further records.
No I don't have a problem with Apple's App store as long as they're providing a valuable service for the developers and on the surface it appears that they are. When they take the majority of the sales and lock the developers into contracts promising exclusive deals with the App store for years to come THEN I'll say the developers are better going solo. To me this seems like the high-exposure radio station of indie software marketing.
Re:except direct sales (Score:5, Insightful)
If you sell via the web, you have hosting costs, bandwidth isn't free, web site development costs money and time, managing updates requires atleast half a clue. You also have to do marketing if you expect it to get popular, just putting up a page doesn't mean people will buy your stuff, reguardless of how great it is, they have to find it first. So that means some form of advertising, sometimes all you need is to have Google index your site, if people are looking for something that only you offer. But its unlikely you are the first, and certainly not the most popular with your brand new software, so you aren't going to be near the top of the list without some Google bombing, which isn't free since it requires work at the very least.
In this case, your 30% taken by Apple puts you on the definative list of iPhone software, and it makes you somewhat trusted, since Apple hasn't banned you yet. So if you think web distribution is closer to 100% then I say that you get 100% free marketing with the AppStore.
Pick any other form of distribution and you'll find that its never anywhere close to 100%.
30% is high. The company I work for distributes portable applications for U3 devices, on the U3 website, they charge 25% at the lost volume of sales. Of course, the also aren't Apple so its not suprising.
If you want to bitch that Apple is charging too much, fine that argument I'll listen to. Claiming that direct sales is going to be close to 100%, thats just silly once you consider all the real costs that go into doing it.
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Other than that, I can see how some coders with a stick-it-to-the-man mentality mi
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
After that, it's free for anyone to download.
Re:Distribution costs $99 (Score:5, Insightful)
Thats a price thats easy to make back up with ads, etc, on the "application" website.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The source is always more important than the tools.
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Distribution costs $99 (Score:4, Informative)
In addition to that, XCode will NOT build your app for deployment unless you have the key in your Keychain already. So, in effect, you cannot test on the actual device without a developer key. Period. The only thing you can do without a key is run in the simulator.
This is based on actually trying to build a test app for deployment without a key, by the way. You actually get a build error.
Re:Should we submit the source code or the binary? (Score:5, Insightful)
The cost of putting actual eyeballs on code is so high that they would never do it. But some profiling tools would be cheap to use.
Sheldon
Re: (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:Why I won't be getting an iPhone (Score:5, Informative)
You have to pay and go through apple to distribute your applications. The SDK is a free download (registration required).
http://developer.apple.com/iphone/program/ [apple.com]
I know it's de rigeur not to RTFA here (Score:3, Informative)
You only have to pay the $99 if you want Apple to distribute your applications for you.
Re:I can smell the irony now. (Score:5, Funny)
Triple dipping into the jar might hurt Apple? (Score:5, Insightful)
a) The hardware - some pretty sweet margins b) A nice cut (~15 to 25%) on the montly fees 3) A 30% cut on all software sold (except of course the free apps)
Contrast this to a Windows mobile phone. Microsoft gets paid a fixed license amount on each device sold and makes nothing on the hardware, the monthly fee, and any software sold to run on their OS. This helps companies compete on hardware, apps etc. I think Apple is gonna miss out on small companies(where the most innovation lies) which cannot afford the 30% overhead for their software sales. Also Apple being the gatekeeper of the software will hurt apps(even free ones) that try to fundamentally interact with the hardware in a non-approved Apple way. The iPhone is aimed at the casual consumers, most of whom don't read long forum threads dedicated to jailbreaking it.
As of now, this looks like a rerun of the 80s microcomputer war and we all know how that turned out to be. It's all about 'Developers, Developers and Developers'. Microsoft gets that and ships excellent development tools with no restrictions at all. Right now, Windows Mobile phones may suck, but heavy competition between handset manufacturers is going to make them better and Windows Mobile OS(look at 6.1 and upcoming 7.0) is heading towards being 'good enough'(like DOS and Windows 3.11). Already we see devices like the Sony Xperia (video ad) [youtube.com] coming out which will give Apple a run for their money. Remember what IBM, Dell, Gateway, HP, Compaq did to Apple back in the 80s? Will Sony, Samsung, Nokia be their equivalent in this round?
I think Apple is missing the bandwagon again in their spirit to make money immediately and are killing the gold egg laying goose for their short term benefit.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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In the case of iPhone applications, Apple's handling the advertising, the promotion, the packaging (well, it's not necessary anymore, but you get the idea), the retail markup and credi
Re:Triple dipping into the jar might hurt Apple? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Got this far, and stopped reading. EDGE is far far faster than dialup (which maxes out at ~56kbit/sec).
reference [business2.com]: a blog not particularly kind to Apple, which contains: