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."

Comments

iPhone SDK, Enterprise Support Announced

[revscat]

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.

Yes, free apps allowed

[SuperKendall]

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.

Re:Yes, free apps allowed

[Ilgaz]

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. I bet Symbian developers bitching about the need of "free certificate" to do low level things with their apps are busy apologising to Nokia and others in Symbian board for their fury.

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%.

You are notified of new versions.

[SuperKendall]

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.

FYI

[Lally Singh]

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.

You couldn't be more wrong

[SuperKendall]

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.

Re:Distribution costs $99

[Lally Singh]

Nope. Just that whomever does the port/release will have to put up $99/yr to Apple.

After that, it's free for anyone to download.

And struggling to stay up from demand

[SuperKendall]

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.

Suspicions are worng

[SuperKendall]

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).

Re:Suspicions are worng

[ickoonite]

They are even allowing VOIP apps (though admittedly only over WiFi, not EDGE).

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:What about personal apps?

[toleraen]

According to engadget you can send your code over to your device to test it. I assume that means you can write and use your own stuff without restriction.

It's an accounting thing

[blueZ3]

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.

Re:It's an accounting thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. And to cut off the inevitable cries of "Apple is just a bunch of rapacious bastards" (I know, too late) It has to do with Sarbanes-Oxley and the way comapnies handle general accounting. So, if you have beef with this, feel free to blame Enron and their ilk.

Re:It's an accounting thing

[DavidShor]

Bullshit, nearly every hardware company posts firmware upgrades.

Re:It's an accounting thing

[AresTheImpaler]

wrong, the sdk is free. Getting a certificate so you can sell (or give away) your app on the app store is $99

Re:It's an accounting thing

[Qwerpafw]

Of course it's not true for something Apple is making additional revenue from - that's how SOX works. For the AppleTV, or the iPhone, they can claim the rental revenue, or subscription revenue balances out the new features. For devices that have no further revenue stream after purchase, according to their accounting they need to charge something. If they charge less than a couple bucks, they'll actually lose money due to processing fees - this is why many stores have "$10 minimum" for credit cards, by the way. Charging $20, of course, includes some profit, but you can't blame a
for profit corporation for trying to make money. Apple isn't a church, despite what many Mac Users would like to believe.

Sarbanes Oxley is complex, and Apple's already been burned by one accounting scandal. They don't want another - they're playing it safe.

Re:It's an accounting thing

[Sparks23]

They said in the talk that if you choose to make your app free on the App Store, there's no charge to either the end user or to the developer. (Other than the initial one-time $99 free to get on board with the App Store and get your application signing certificate.) So they already addressed that.

Re:It's an accounting thing

[Macka]

Firmware upgrades are usually bug fixes, not functionality enhancements. The former is like fixing the plumbing because it wasn't built quite right in the first place, and you wouldn't expect to pay for faulty goods. The latter is like adding an extension to the back of your house, and that costs!

Re:It's an accounting thing

[Firehed]

It's not exactly an obscure accounting rule (Sarbanes-Oxley), but certainly one that's a pain in the ass. Citing iTunes isn't quite valid, since it's a free product. They've never claimed that the upgrade to Quicktime Pro was because of this - you get limited features if you pay nothing, and get all the features if you pay $20. That's just licensing. The reason that you don't see that kind of thing in smaller devs is that it only applies to publicly held companies (per the Wiki article).

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:It's an accounting thing

[phuul]

Well that isn't strictly true. It doesn't have to be something that they make additional revenue from, it all depends on how they account for the revenue. The way it works for the iPhone and the AppleTV is that they spread the revenue across two years. So if I buy an iPhone for $399 Apple doesn't count the full $399 as revenue right away, only $16.63 (16.625 to be exact). They do the same thing for the next 23 months. Even if I never activate the iPhone I just purchased they would account for this the same way.

Now the the thing I do find bizarre is that for some reason they didn't do this with the iPod Touch. It would seem like an obvious choice. During the event today Jobs mentioned something about the Touch being in the iPod line so they accounted for it like other iPods.

... ok then. Uh it must make sense to someone at Apple I guess.

Re:It's an accounting thing

[Ilgaz]

That's not a material feature upgrade. I have a feeling firmware updates count as minor bug fixes or something like that. Sony PSP added these via firmware updates (these are things I could follow as outsider)

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

[Dahamma]

I bought a lifetime subscription to Tivo 6 years ago. Haven't paid anything since.

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:Marginally sweet...

[Reality Master 101]

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.

Re:Why I won't be getting an iPhone

[creed_nmd]

Or you could wait until details come out, or read Engadget's report of what Steve said: "We think a lot of people will want to become an iPhone developer -- go to our site, probably in about an hour, and download the SDK. You can join the developer program to test your app on the iPhone and iPod touch and distribute your app -- to join the dev program costs just $99. If you have any questions about anything give us a ping at developer.apple.com." In other words, download a *free* SDK to write and test your app, then pay $99 to get the certificate to download onto your hardware, whether or not you decide to distribute it to the general public or not. The only 'going through Apple' is a $99 charge to get the key to the hardware. But waiting until you actually have the full details and know the facts before making a decision, that is obviously too difficult...

Re:Testing only through the simulator?

[phuul]

Actually the application is running on the iPhone, UI and all. The Mac is to do debugging and performance monitoring WHILE the app is running on the iPhone.

Re:Why I won't be getting an iPhone

[BitZtream]

You should actually go read the web page that tells you what the details are.

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/

I know it's de rigeur not to RTFA here

[blueZ3]

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.

Re:What about free apps?

[Stuart Gibson]

Also covers credit card charges so you don't need to worry about those either.

Re:Why is that a problem?

[Knight2K]

Steve's keynote slides explicitly show that Xcode can publish the code to your personal iPhone for testing purposes. This image from Engadget's coverage (see the 10:30am post for context) shows an iMac remote debugging on the phone using an iPod dock. Whether that means an end user can load an app without going through the store is hard to say.

Still the same

[SuperKendall]

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!

Re:Distribution costs $99

[keytoe]

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:iPhone developer agreement

[mstone]

That wording is purely defensive for Apple. It more or less says you can't lock Apple out of a given application market just by dropping a quick beta into the iPhone Apps store.

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.

Re:No 3G Data means store will be crippled anyway

[Space cowboy]

Since the I-phone is not 3G capable (read far slower than dialup transfer rates)

Got this far, and stopped reading. EDGE is far far faster than dialup (which maxes out at ~56kbit/sec).

reference: a blog not particularly kind to Apple, which contains:

EDGE: An acronym for Enhanced Data Rates for GSM Evolution, this is what experts call a bolt-on enhancement of GSM. It takes a second generation (2G) network and makes it roughly 2.75G. EDGE can carry data speeds up to 236.8 kbit/second for 4 timeslots. AT&T's EDGE network was delivering roughly 40 kbit/s before it was upgraded in advance of iPhone's launch. Today several sites are reporting download speeds of better than 200 kbits/s over the same network.

which links to engadgets tests verifying the speed.

Simon