Slashdot Mirror
An App Store For iPhone Software
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."
apparently it's free to use for iphone users, but ipod touch users will have to pay a fee.
Will they distribute apps for developers who don't want to charge users for the privilege of downloading/using?
"And there's no charge for developers to distribute free applications"
Well... now I'm excited
Meh. My submission was better.
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.
It would be nice if Steve would add version control so that I've always got the most recent version of BrickBreaker. 70% of profits for a clearly defined distribution framework doesn't sound too bad.
which would net the developer much closer to 100% of the proceeds. Sounds like a rather cushy deal for Apple to monopolize something else. When you want to buy some software for another PDA, the company that made the PDA generally doesn't take 30%.
Yep, free apps are allowed and even encouraged. You have to pay a $99 developer fee to get assigned a cert, so you have to sign your apps - but you can set any price, including free.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
... the 100million fund seems kinda useless (anyone remember the Kleiner's "Java Fund" ? exactly what success did they have with that one?) OR the Facebook fund by Bay Partners. dumb dumb dumb. or maybe they are still smarting from the whole GOOD Technology fiasco trying to battle blackberries/RIM.
I have to pay for things I got for free before?
:)
:)
Oh wait - it's Apple. Carry on.
Full disclosure - I've been called an Apple fanboi before.
It seems testing is gonna be restricted to the iPhone simulator, since the only way to get the app into the phone is through the store. That's a really bad thing. There are lots of things that cannot be tested in the simulated, especially those related to the iPhone's innovative accessibility features (multitouch, accelerometer). How are we supposed to use a simulator to test applications that make use of that, like some games, for instance?
The main question I have, is if John Carmack has anything to add to the discussion.
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)
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
When you get an app from the app store, you'll automatically be advised when new versions can be had and also what new features are offered.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Point your browser to the Apple Developer website in order to download a beta SDK (seems to be down right now because of web server poundage).
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 will be allowed but only WiFi VOIP.
4. Spore for iPhone? Fuck yeah!
MS Exchange ActiveSync support for syncing email/calendar/contacts & IPSec VPN support. These items are really what I have been waiting for, although the XCode enhancements for the iPhone SDK look nice, including full access to core OS features like OpenGL, a remote debugger and performance analysis tools, etc. June looks to be the month I get an iPhone. Hopefully they'll release a 3G model with GPS at the same time.
today is spelling optional day.
Comparison pricing:
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.
Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
To even get an app listed on the iTunes store (whether or not you pay for it) costs $99. You can't distribute your app or load it on your phone (not even for debugging) without paying them $99.
Doesn't this impinge upon the ability to release (or port) GPL software to the iPhone?
I don't see any incompatibility just because the tools used to compile the app cost a fee. The important thing is the source code after all. The interesting thing is that do distribute it, someone has to have "the" key you'd distribute with - but you could set that up as some kind of non-profit entity to control distribution of something open.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"Not all applications will be distributed: "Porn, malicious apps, ones that invade privacy." Yet they use ATT as a provider.
The SDK is going to be HUGE for the jailbreaking community. They now have an official documented API and development environment. So there will be apps out there way earlier than 4 months.
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
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.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
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.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Holy shit, that would suck. Confirmation, anyone?
How is this better than hosting your own server, paying 5% to the credit card companies, being responsible for chargebacks, being responsible for infrastructure, etc, etc, etc.
All for a whopping 30% of your proceeds? Fuck that.
I might have missed something, but it was sort of unclear to me whether developers are required to submit the source code or not. I wonder how are they going to enforce some of the restrictions imposed on the programs (no porn, no voip over edge, no malicious apps) if they don't have access to the source code (maybe keeping a team of reversers on the clock?).
I guess I'm screwed if I want to write an application just for my own use? The choice seems to be: write it and distribute it to everyone, or get stuffed.
Hmmm... iHacking we will go, iHacking we will go.......
MadCow
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
NO PORN?!?!!!!!!!
(Searh for the word "porn" here on ars.)
Why else does teh internet even f'ing exist?
Thats it STEVE, I cant exist in a world where iPhones can't be used for porn... you've left me no choice. *crying* See, I have this gun... goodbye cruel worl#@#$+!##** NO CARRIER
I managed to get registered before the site took load, right now it's not working very well and you can't get to anything. Soon hopefully...
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.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I see you're talking to a girl. What can I assist you with?
Flirt/Joke/Molest
As an iPod touch user, I will have to pay $$ for the privilege of paying $$ for apps in the App Store??? I don't think so.
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.
They demoed AIM on stage for goodness sakes! They are even allowing VOIP apps (though admittedly only over WiFi, not EDGE).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
One of the most appealing features of the iPhone for me was the fact that its virtually a full computer in a small box. I hoped this meant that I will be able to write my own software/scripts and really play around with the device (without some 3rd party hack). This announcement confirms my long standing fear. If I have to go through apple to run applications I write ON MY OWN DEVICE, then no sale. Looking forward to Android...
Wrong. Apps that are distributed for free are free.
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
Probably true, but who cares? Apple hasn't really cared about that, and with such easy access to applications the demand for jailbreaks will probably fall way, way off (basically consisting of people looking for SIM unlocks which are not allowed apps).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
My understanding (and IANAA) is that because Apple realizes the revenue from iPhone purchases over the course of two years, they can make changes to the product and it's no big deal. With the touch, they've already accounted for your purchase, so there's some arcane rule that says they can't give you additional functionality without charging you for it. I'm betting the "nominal" fee really will be nominal--like $2 or something.
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
Wow. Just think of the advertising opportunity. The screen saver would be an ideal platform.
Deleted
With you being able to get at files from the internet, email, copied from your system, the camera, and other apps.
So... What happens when Microsoft wants to make a iPhone version of IE (iE?)? I assume that since that would be a threat to Safari that it would be blocked. That sounds awfully familiar... I can smell the ironic court cases, even now.
One never knows when one might need a rotten tomato... - King's Quest IV: Heir Today, Gone Tomorrow
I have read some of the discussion here on GPL licensing and that restrictions on applications should allow this, so will we see Firefox on the iPhone?
i see a loophole where one company will act as a distributor, fronting all the App Store fees, and only asking for 1% of revenues... a boon for the little guys, pointless for anybody else
Come on, how little do you have to be to not be able to afford a one-time $99 developer fee? I could have afforded that back when I was eating Ramen in college (kind of like Playboy, I ate it for the flavor. Honest!)
And what does your loophole get you anyway - the one company is taking 1% off the 70% they get after apple has the 30% off the top. So you really get something like 69% of sales, but for what? Since Apple handles distribution and hosting what exactly would be worth paying anyone anything for?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Is this GPL compatible? If I offer a GPL app on this store and provide source, the user can't use that source to modify the app without paying a fee, right? Is this a problem under the GPLv2? v3?
Certificate != DRM. A signature simply says that you certify that you are indeed the creator of the software. On the other hand DRM says you can only use this software after having handed over a limb, or something of the sorts.
With GPLed software you don't have to provide the source as part of the same distribution, but you have to provide a way of getting the source. This source could be on your web site, available by post, or whatever, but it has to be available. In your application add a blurb explaining how to get the source.
As for the $99 fee, technically there is nothing stoping you getting together with a bunch of friends and using the same signature. The only thing is you have better trust each other, since there is such thing as having a certificate revoked. I don't know whether Apple would to this, but this is the general notion. Its all down to a trust system. If you abuse the trust, then you lose it.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
But from the demo, you can clearly write your own software and install it on your own phone, and all for free. The SDK is free and at the announcement they demo'd loading an app from the dev box to the iPhone without using the store. So sign up as a developer, download the Xcode tools, and code away.
You only have to pay the $99 if you want Apple to distribute your applications for you.
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
Give it a month after it comes out tops and someone will find a way to get it on the touch. There's no way a more open system like the Iphone can contain software exclusive to it, even if they try to verify it over the internet.
I suspect it will be so quickly cracked apple won't be able to keep up with patches for months at a minimum.
Does this mean no open-source?
As long as the apps will be delivered by iTunes anyway, how hard would it be to allow musicians to load their music directly to the iTunes store? The $99 developer fee is surely less than what many bands spend on the CDs and shirts they sell at their shows. What? Record Company? What's that? There are no records here.
What happens when Microsoft wants to make a iPhone version of IE (iE?)?
That depends on whether it supported ActiveX or Silverlight or not, since you could use those tools to bypass the iPhone store. But I don't see Microsoft doing that... they never did when they were distributing IE for the Mac.
I might see Microsoft making a port of the mobile version of Windows Media Player. That might raise a few eyebrows at Apple.
I've had BOINC running for a while without a GUI on my iPhone using the hacker SDK.
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
I've used and supported devices using ActiveSync, and it's not my idea of a good time. At one point ActiveSync decided to use 192.168.55.0/24 (if I recall correctly) and so all of a sudden everyone with a Pocket PC couldn't get to one of our internal test-floor subnets.
Luckily, they will probably only implement the parts needed to sync with Exchange and not the whole complex mess that made it SO much fun on the Pocket PC.
I followed the SDK and store announcement online in real time and I believe that for the most part Apple has provided a tool that we can use - but there was no discussion of "try before you buy." There's a wide variance in software quality - usually if software is not ubiquitous I will not buy it without testing it first.
Hopefully this will be handled in some so-far unspecified way.
If they have elements of Spore running on the iPhone that likely means it's native Cocoa, and not running under Wine on steroids. That's better news than anything else in the announcement, I think.
Lets all search for "Flash Player" think they mine the search data queries?
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
So is there any chance of getting an ssh implementation that doesn't require jailbreaking on my iPhone before June? If I can download the SDK, the SSH.app source code, compile it, and then upload it via the SDK, that'd be perfect.
App app was demoed that made use of the camera too. It looks like basically the only thing off-limits to this SDK in terms of hardware is apps accessing the dock connector.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Do you think Skype might be joining the iPhone bandwagon with this SDK? It seems unclear from Steve Jobs' remarks just how selective they will be with applications. On technical grounds, I agree with disabling VoIP on cellular networks since these are nowhere near prepared. However, VoIP over WiFi is good enough and, coupled with Skype and services like SkypeIn, could be extremely useful. The unavailability of Skype is the only thing that's keeping me away from buying an iPhone.
I've been expecting a 3G iPhone with their next release
Quite honestly, it's the singular thing keeping me from getting one. I live in a HSDPA area with decent but not total WiFi...
Did they NOT announce it, or am I missing something?
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
I used to think like you, but then it occurred to me that SMS messaging isn't going anywhere, because it has certain inherent advantages. Most importantly, it uses your own cell carrier as the "post office" for the text message. If your phone is turned off when someone tries to send you that SMS, no problem. Their system knows when your phone is communicating with them again, and can wait to deliver the SMS until you're ready to get it.
With instant messaging, delivery is far less reliable. Typically, I see things like the IM client itself offering an option to "attempt to redeliver when receiver comes back online", but that means if the SENDER'S computer is powered off (or they quit their IM software) before the receiver comes back, then the message STILL doesn't get delivered.
Additionally, cellphones tend to go in and out of areas where they can receive digital data reliably. This can happen very rapidly and often. (At my office, for example, I get a weak signal indoors and it varies from room to room as I walk around the building.) I'm no expert on SMS, but it seems to support some type of acknowledgment protocol. If an SMS is sent to my phone and it only receives part of it before losing signal, it seems to be discarded. Then the carrier retries, not having received confirmation from my phone that it was delivered successfully. IM clients don't seem to have this functionality. (I've often had people tell me they never got the last thing I typed, and I had to copy/paste it to manually re-send it to them.)
Nah, it's probably OpenGL inside a minimal Cocoa shell.
:)
OK, point taken, but what I mean is that it's not running GDI/DirectX under an emulator like the other recent quote-ports-unquote of games to the Mac have been.
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) 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.This space for rent.
First thing I'll buy: a rotary-dial interface 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.
The same is technically true with Verizon Wireless's Get It Now store. You can give away apps for free, but since you have to pay to get them signed, no one does it, because giving them away for free means losing money.
Don't expect to see a lot of free iPhone apps either.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
So I'm sitting in front of my computer whining that Apple's servers have melted down and I can't get the SDK and my wife says:
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...
Us Cocoa developers may well get the professional validation we've never had before. It would be nice for a change to have HR people and headhunters call us up and talk to us about our Cocoa development abilities, instead of saying "Cocoa, Objective-C, what's that?" and mentally cross us off the job candidate list.
Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
Hardly. Apps are only allowed if they are G-rated enough and don't create conflict with Apple partners like a file sharing app or unrestricted VOIP might. Go ahead, try getting your eDonkey or Hymn port onto an iPhone. You'll see. Further, how on Earth are you going to "simulate" the pinchy thing with a damned mouse? Oh wait, Nokia's dilapidated SDK uses a 'simulator' so Apple should too. Apple has done exactly what they should have avoided. They're following Nokia and making all the same mistakes as Nokia. They will not become the leader by following the leader.
Here's a free tip Apple: Please port the real Mac OS X to your iPhone hardware and stop handing us this cheap imitation. Put XCode on the iPhone. Give me a bluetooth keyboard/mouse driver on the iPhone. I should be able to develop an app for my phone, ON MY PHONE. No extra hardware, simulator, or certificates required. Would the desktop PC market have ever taken off if developers needed time on a mainframe to create apps and permission from the PC manufacturer to distribute it?
Apple, you blew it with the Macintosh once already. You're blowing it again. It seems history does repeat itself.
If you were to so decide... could you release outside the App Store,and -not- split the sale at all?
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure 70/30 is 'reasonable' in some circles. 100 (minus expenses) is a lot more reasonable in most of the world's business, however.
Now if you can still release your apps outside of the App Store, on your own store, and users can still download+install that way, then I don't see much of a problem.
If you -have- to use App Store, however, then Apple completely holds all the control of what is and what is not allowed on the iPhone, whether the iPhone -user- likes it or not.
Moreover, presume somebody jailbreaks the iPhone so that apps downloaded anywhere can be installed outside of the App Store. Now presume you decide to tap into this market by indeed selling/releasing your app outside of the App Store. How pissed is Apple going to be?
A. Not at all, they won't care?
B. No more early SDK releases as punishment
C. Banned from App Store as punishment
D. Some manner of legal recourse after breach of contract when you got the SDK saying that you SHALL NOT release out side of App Store, on penalty of
Call me skeptical, but I honestly can't see this as being -only- a good thing. I fully understand the -added- value of e.g. iTMS / an 'App Store'. But that's -added- value, not -sole value-.
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.
Even on Atari 800XL my excited developer friends knocked my door with a cassette tape, diskette to show their programs.
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!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The same is technically true with Verizon Wireless's Get It Now store.
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 (via Google and online banking metrics).
I had looked into doing J2ME development (some free stuff, some commercial), but for the ideas I had the infrastructure and framework was just not advanced enough for what I want to do. Now, we have something that can offer a great UI and realy make it easy for users to find applications they like.
You are going to see a TON of free apps right out of the gate.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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.
As I understand it, there won't be any goods in the App store. Just software.
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.
I can't speak to how it's implemented otherwise, but back when I had a Sidekick, AIM and Y! Messenger were implemented over SMS, at least from the phone to T-Mobile. Then T-Mobile would maintain the connection to the IM provider. In that way, you got all the benefits of SMS communication, but weren't limited to only sending messages to other cell phones.
Of course, it helped that T-Mobile's sidekick plan had unlimited SMS (something that led to them dominating the hearing-impaired market)...
XMPP gets you everything you've just asked for. In fact, with XMPP you can do offline message storage, and nothing special even needs to be done in the client.
XEP-0013
Today was only to talk about software, no hardware talk at all. We know the 3G phone is coming, they said the chipset would be available later this year.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I'm sure whoever does an SSH client now, will simply move it to the official SDK. There's no reason not to have it up and many people would probably be working on a variant.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Remember, you'd only be distributing the source code outside of App Store / iTMS. That source code, even when compiled, won't actually run on the iPhone/whatever -without- being signed. Once you distribute the signed app outside of App Store / iTMS (if that's even possible), then Apple might come after you.
How this ends up playing with GPLv3 is another matter entirely.
people who give up their freedom don't deserve it anyway (approx. quote)
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
Dude. Who said the iPhone isn't ready for business? You can write apps for it using the SDK. Anything it can't do yet is only a matter of writing a check to an iPhone programmer and voila, it does it. Not ready for business... Bah, humbug!
So I have a tech question... this iPhone SDK, store and such is all very exciting, but does any of it apply to the iTouch as well? Is there an iTouch SDK that is a subset of the iPhone SDK? I'd be interested in developing for the iTouch since it is so much cheaper (more customers) and available internationally (more customers).
Or do they just look the same but share no common internals (which would seem really dumb)?
Me thinks Vito and Tony are gonna be mighty jealous.. watch out Jobsy boy
Since it looks like SEGA's on board for iPhone development (and is already porting Super Monkey Ball), I wonder if there's any chance of getting Typing of the Dead for the iPhone. That would be insanely cool.
Which makes me wonder why e-mail hasn't killed off SMS on the iPhone.
Anyone have any explanation?
Note that this isn't tha simple.
Actually it is.
You request to enroll on the developer programme, and apple select a *few* developers charge them $99 and let them publish.
And you know it's "a few" because?
I have applied, and I am just a single developer. You give Apple no idea what you are working on. You could be anyone. Yes you have to wait for approval - but that's just time for Apple to verify the information they have provided.
They have 100% compete control on who writes software. This explicitly excludes anyone not in the US, for example.
Now that is true, and a shame, though I imagine it will expand. In the meantime if you really want to get in, get a US "dev buddy" if you want to write something. If you have any friends in the US use that address. At least you can download the SDk today and start working.
That doesn't look like it encourages free apps to me - it looks like they're keeping a few developers in the loop as a PR exercise.
Like I said, you have no idea how the process works. Silly Apple haters.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Since the I-phone is not 3G capable (read far slower than dialup transfer rates) you had better be near a wi-fi hotspot or plugged into your computer to get all these new apps. Also since you cant change the battery in the handset, if you are at a hotspot forget using the phone or bluetooth unless you want your battery to die in like 10 minutes. Except for visual voicemail which is very cool and safari which is useless anyway because of the over the air data transfer rates the I-phone is overpriced, overhyped and under performing in every metric that a smartphone can be. I am not drinking the kool-aid on this one.
Have you downloaded the SDK? It's a gcc cross compiler, enough integration to use xcode as a text editor and the simulator. Everything has to be written in raw objective C. There's no app designer, the documentation is a copy/paste job from OSX and there are no sample applications.
Yes, I have downloaded the dev kit. I know Interface Builder is not in place yet. But having manually used remote debugging with GCC in the past the XCode integration they already offer is pretty good.
I'm not even sure that you can run the code on real hardware - haven't worked out how to yet short of jailbreaking it.
There are several sample applications on the web site, along with some other tutorials and instructions - did you not see those? Though I can't access them anymore, as load seems to have jumped again and it's not letting me log in to access them. The key is that you have to have an account... you don't have to have paid anything to get to that part.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
Lame huh...? I guess 70% of the internet is also lame.
...Nothing runs on an iPhone without Apple's permission
Gee, all you have to prove now is 70% of all internet traffic comes from mobile devices (what I was talking about). Losing on point after point, don't you just feel even more stupid retreating to a position I wasn't even talking about in the first place?
I think you spent the rest of your lengthy post avoiding the point I was making
A dev (which anyone can become) can compile and run anything they want. So I guess you've really outdone the embarrassment to yourself this time!
And I did talk about it, I guess you've also proved less than stellar reading comprehension on your part.
THAT is lame.
Self reflection?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Not really much different (though I admit I thought it was a one time fee). It's less than most people pay for a month of cable.
Where does it say the fee is good only for a year?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I don't know if it would be possible to change the pricing after setting it, but it would seem to be a reasonable compromise to charge $1 until the cost of the $99 was covered, then make it free. This would mean the first 130 or so customers would pay, and if the app was worth downloading, I'm sure there would be enough people willing to subsidise those who are unwilling/unable to pay.
IE owns 80% of the web browser market. Are you saying that the iPhone will own 80% of the cell phone market?
It's not an obscure accounting rule, it's the very much non-obscure Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
Please inform yourself about this law. It might help clear up a few confusions you seem to have, such as your question about iTunes.
No, they don't handle Leopard that way, which is why you'll only see minor changes (mainly bugfixes) and no major free updates until the next version of OS X comes out.
The word subscription being the important part here.
Anyway, SOx has never been tried in court, so different companies interpret it differently. Apple's on the save side, which is kind of understandable, given the issues they had with stock option backdating. They probably want to avoid a similar brouhaha, since they're likely to be one of the first companies sued if anything goes wrong, due to their visibility. Sue Apple and you're on every news show. Sue Tivo and nobody gives a shit.
Sony is a Japanese company. You might have had a point had you cited Microsoft, although they do charge subscriptions, so that might explain why they release new features in firmware updates.
As soon as there's an open phone that's remotely as pleasant and easy to use as the iPhone.
In addition to the parents observation that not all phones do email gracefully; for the bulk of email users, it's a pull technology where SMS is push. This means that when my friend sends me a text it's at my phone almost instantly. with email, I either have to wait the email check period, or peck at the "get email" button like a trained chicken.
If we all had push email, then SMS would be a thing of the past.
Also try to explain to a 10 year old niece that her verizon LG phone is wrong, and the pictures of her webkins that she wants to MMS to her friends and her aunt aren't getting received by her aunt because her aunt's phone is actually more advanced and thus has forsaken the cell phone standard of MMS and picture sending.
Sheldon
My guess it's Sarbanes-Oxley again.
I see a lot of bitchin' and moanin' about Apple's 30% take on the store. Wow...c'mon people...let's look at the big picture here. You've got an opportunity to put your goods out with one of most recognized names in the world and you're bitchin' about 30%? Are you THAT well known as a developer that when you put something out there everyone will clamor and go "holy hell! Mr X put out a new app!" I would much rather make 70% from a few million sales than 100% of a few hundred sales (of which there will be many incidental costs of doing this all yourself). Is that math and logic really that hard to see or are we all jumping on the "Apple is a greedy corporate entity" bandwagon?
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
I'm surprised I haven't seen this suggestion, especially on Slashdot. Go open source! If you don't want to distribute your compiled application through the Apple Store, simply make your application source available for download elsewhere. Granted, anyone who wants to use it will need a $99 SDK to compile it, but if they already have the money for an iPhone and a computer and an internet connection... Go open source and you can bypass the Apple Store
You're going to want to type all your code on the iPhone itself and compile apps on it? The iPhone simulator simulates multitouch pinch and zoom by holding the option key down which displays 2 circles on the simulator screen. You move your mouse around and the 2 circles move like your fingers. I'm sure someone will find a way to put apps on the iPhone without the App Store application because XCode can do it, unless you can't run the app without XCode running but I don't actually have an iPhone to try it out.
ICQ does that, or did it back in the 1996-97 timeframe when I used it.