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
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.
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
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!
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.
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.
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
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.)
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.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
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.
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.
======
In X-Windows the client serves YOU!
We (Id) have put in our application like everyone else, so I don't have any inside information at this point. I think Steve is still pissed at me over some negative comments I made about iPod development tools a while ago. Just based on the blurbs, it looks very good -- a simulator plus debugging on the native device is the best of both worlds, and a 70% royalty deal for apps over iTunes is quite good.
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
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
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