Slashdot Mirror
iPhone App Pricing Limits Developers
HardYakka writes "According to this post in the Fortune blog, the iTunes app store has been a boon for users but some developers are saying the number of free and 99 cent apps make it difficult for developers to create complex, higher priced apps. Craig Hockenberry of Iconfactory says the iPhone may never get its killer app like the spreadsheet was for the Mac.
If Apple does not do something, the store will be left with only ring tones and simple games. Some are suggesting that overpaid developers are the problem and the recession will soon lower the wages and costs for complex apps."
Simply add Top Apps categories for more price ranges...
$1-$5
$5-$10
$10-$50
$50- ??
This is utter crap on behalf of any developer. If you make a decent software app and it sells to 100,000 people for $0.99 then how much have you actually made. Yes it is a competitive market, but you sell your app for 0.50c and let people go with it. 100,000 people buying an app for 50c each should more than pay for it. An idea could be as complex as you like and I still can't see spending more than $100 Grand on it for an iPhone app.
Unless you're a shitty developer or you're not writing a good app.
Me failed English...
FreeBSD over Linux. If my comments seem odd, this may explain...
Isn't this advantage almost exclusively for those entirely new to each respective OS?
No. My company switched from all linux desktops to all Mac desktops and laptops about 3 years ago. We're all software developers and very experienced on linux desktops. Our productivity is way up because we spend so little time fussing with the Macs compared to how much time we spent maintaining the linux desktops.
I'm not saying the case will be identical in every situation. But sometimes linux just takes more time to maintain.
Developers: We can use your help.
For crunching, yes, Linux tends to be used (in part because it makes the boxes doing the crunching cheaper). But the individual artists' workstations are extremely rarely Linux-based, sorry.
I mean--are you seriously going to try to say that Linux beats either platform capable of running Adobe's software when it comes to actually doing the graphics design part of the job? (And if you say GIMP, I'm just going to laugh at you. It's nice if you haven't got anything better, and that's about it. Cinelerra is okay for what it does, but unfortunately for your argument it runs on OS X, too. I'm not enough of a video editing guy to say whether I prefer it over Premiere/After Effects, though. And I will call the men in white coats to take you to be fitted for a very long-sleeved jacket if you try to compare Inkscape with Illustrator.)
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
You are just digging yourself deeper with every ignorant post you make.
Who the hell cares what a demo artist or your friend uses. The "bigtime" (your word) studios have clear separations of software and personnel for modelling, animation, and rendering (etc). Some of these steps, especially rendering of late, is done on Linux-based server farms, but a LOT of work is still done on Macs with both commercial and proprietary software.
To your Pixar example... DUUH! Steve Jobs is Chairman of both Apple and Pixar, and trust me, he makes sure Macs do and always will have a significant presence there.
There are lots of things linux is great for, and depending on your usage it might even be a decent desktop OS. But that's certainly not the case for every desktop user, even with releases from the "last X years" (though I agree they are getting better).
I've run and used daily both an OS X and an Ubuntu workstation for several years, and in that time I've essentially given up on trying to make A/V playback, browser plugins, or even multiple-screen use work on the linux box. 95% of the stuff works fine -- I can play back most codecs, use most browser plugins, and display video on both screens. But that last 5% takes hours to fix, if it can be fixed at all. There are still some codecs I just can't make work, some plugins that won't run, and my cursor is either displayed incorrectly or slightly mis-aligned on my second and third monitors, even after hours of tweaking.
I'm not saying my Mac never annoys me, but when it does the answer is almost always cut and dry -- "it can't be done". Compare that to the linux machine, where "it works for me", or "you just have to do to get it going, unless you have GPU X, then you need to do ". Now sometimes those extra 28 steps are worthwhile, because I can do things that aren't possible on my Mac. But sometimes those extra 28 steps just eat 30 minutes of my life, and if I was using my Mac I wouldn't have wasted the time.
If I were just doing basic computing tasks, and didn't care to muck with the configuration, a linux desktop would be perfectly acceptable and would require little maintenance. But as someone who wants to play with things, and who isn't willing to accept that it works for others but not for me, a linux desktop can be a huge distraction and time sink.
/ Would give my grandmother linux on the desktop
// Still has a linux desktop in daily use
/// Just also needs a unix-like computer that works well enough to keep me from getting distracted by administrative tasks