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."
"And there's no charge for developers to distribute free applications"
Well... now I'm excited
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.
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 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
Actually this could be a very sweet deal for developers.
... but it seems to me that even with Apple taking a 30% cut, the exposure that the App store gives could provide the developers with WAY more sales than they could manage to get going solo.
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.
Direct sales don't come anywhere close to 100% in the real world. You have to pay for the distribution medium. If that is a box on a shelf, you generally pay for shelf space at the major retailers up front, and then make your money back after they take their cut.
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.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
For Free Apps: 30% of nothing is still nothing.
I suggest you write a shareware application to subsidize your obsession with free app writing. It will help pay your bills and also show you can work in both market spaces.
I suspect that it will be a monitor the app after the fact type of thing. Apple and AT&T know who you are as the app author. So if your app does something funky, then they pull the plug on it. There's no way the apple folks are going to scour source for all the apps that will flow in. I suspect they have a profiling tool that checks port usage etc and off it goes. Then if it's doing something sneaky, AT&T will catch it eventually if it's popular, and pull the plug. If it's not popular (IE you and your aunt berha are exchanging chat messages over the data network not SMS) then it's really not an issue.
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
You confuse source code with tools to use the source. With the source you can do anything, including port something to Android...
The source is always more important than the tools.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
And presumably you could get someone in a generous position to offer free distribution of open source applications under a single "publisher". Ie, twenty free apps published by "FreeSoftwareInc", and suddenly its $5 per developer, not $100.
Thats a price thats easy to make back up with ads, etc, on the "application" website.
Well, you have a point from a business freedom point of view, it kind of falls apart in the real world. Realistically, a developer will easily lose 30% through credit card processing fees, the costs of hosting their own store and other related expenses. The only business reason not to like this would possibly be for a large company that already hosts its own software store and wants to keep all their products under one roof.
Other than that, I can see how some coders with a stick-it-to-the-man mentality might not be hot on the idea, but then again, I can't really see those people as big Apple developers in the first place.
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.
That's not a material feature upgrade. I have a feeling firmware updates count as minor bug fixes or something like that.
The apps aren't firmware upgrades.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine...
App Zapper is not essential system software, and is not comparable to the Windows application install/uninstall process.
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).
ENDUT! HOCH HECH!
I mean, if I can develop custom apps for my phone or DL GPL source from sf (or equivalent: is iphonesource.com avaliable?) and compile it and load it, what use do I have of going through iTunes?
You must be new, welcome to the Internet. Here on the Internet you are required to view any publicly held company as evil and any effort on their part to charge for a service as pure, unadulterated greed preferably attributed to their CEO or other high-ranking executive. Corporations should provide as many possible services for free, regardless of the time, capital, and human resources required to develop and run those services or products. Any efforts of corporations to charge money in voluntary exchange for their services or products is to be likened to highway robbery, extortion, or in the case of particularly large corporations, rape. I hope these guidelines have helped. May your future be full of forum discussions loathing corporations and their evil/greedy ways.
Lenovo isn't an American Company.
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?
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.)
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.
If you can't handle paying 99 bucks, what the hell are you doing with an iPhone?
$99 per developer to publish as many software titles as you want for free *is* low money. If you can't afford a $99 developer program, you probably can't afford the $399 device to test it on or the computer to host it, or the food to eat while you code...
E pluribus unum
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!
It would be extremely annoying for the friends of the mobile customers if it weren't implemented that way since you'd be getting drop-reconnect events almost constantly.
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
Quoting yourself as an expert on what Apple should do is pretty egotistical, especially when the ideas are not there to back up your cred.
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.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Have anything to back up your speculation? The issue is that if you significantly upgrade the capabilities of a product, that can be viewed as providing an incomplete product first and realizing all of the earnings from it before the product has been completely delivered. No one can say where the line between 'significant upgrade' and 'bugfix/minor firmware refresh' lies until a court adjudicates it with the specific details of the situation. That being said, the 2.0 firmware is clearly a pretty significant upgrade.
Your conspiracy theory aside, this behavior is described in Revenue Recognition GAAP. I'm not an accountant, but I can google (look up SEC SAB 104)... It seems likely that Apple recognizes the iPod Touch revenue on a sales basis (alternatives being: percentage of completion, cost recovery (no $ til everything is done & finished), and installment). This isn't a new SarOx thing, but SarOx clarifies auditing standards & makes businesses more (easily?)liable for financial irregularities.
So I'd love to hear if you have any evidence for your theory, other than pure speculation.
-Ted
-=-=- Quantum physics - the dreams stuff are made of.
What good is having the source if you have no way to install it on the device after you modify it and compile it? How do you test your modifications? Do you compile it, buy a $99 cert for yourself and then "distribute" it to yourself through Apple?
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 to accompany it.
I know that's a little bit unnecessarily sarky, but you're asking questions that were answered at the event and on every website reporting on the event and then drawing a conclusion based on your assumption of what those answers are without even a superficial attempt to find out if they are correct.
If you questions had been "can the sdk be used to compile and install apps for general use on the phone? do apps installed via the sdk work normally when not plugged into a mac for development?" you would have had good questions that aren't definitively answered already (at least, i don't remember there being anything about that).
Would Apple allow a single organization with a single cert to proxy for an unknown set of developers?
You mean like a corporation?
Seems like that woudl kind of defeat the purpose of signing the apps. Presumably it is to provide security and accountability, no?
I would say it provides the same security and accountability. If you publish an app under your cert and it is a problem, they'll probably revoke your cert and all of the applications under your cert will probably be removed from the store. I suspect all of the developers publishing through you will hold you accountable for that.
There's fundamentally no way for the store to know that your publishing organisation isn't publishing applications it created or were created by its employees or contractors if you don't tell them.
I bet we'll continue to see hacks to open up the devices to free software.
I also have no doubt that this will continue.
Darth --
Nil Mortifi, Sine Lucre
give me a break... MSDN costs a lot more than $99. Almost everyone charges more. You will spend 10x that much to join the program for the blackberry. $99 to join the program, get all the tools, simulator, docs, dev videos, hosting, update service, etc. I know it's a common sentiment on slashdot that everyone should get everything for free and everyone (else) should work without pay to give you everything you want free, but the attitude is getting tiresome.
E pluribus unum
I don't think it actually runs it on the phone, only uses it as a display/touch screen.
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 decades now I find it way more likely that it pushes the app to the phone. I would rather they not remove the app after you've deployed, I hope that's not the case if you've compiled a release version and you want a longer field test...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Actually I agree with you on principle. The iPhone is closed platform and not an open system like MS Windows.
However, the cost itself shouldn't be that big of a deal if you're in it for the money.
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.