The Struggles of Getting Into the App Store

What we have here... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 15:16 · Score: 3, Funny

Is failure to communicate.

Re:What we have here... by Mitreya · 2012-10-23 17:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

What we have here...Is failure to communicate.
What we have here ... Is a deliberate failure to communicate.
FTFY.
Explaining policies would expose inconsistencies and cost money in additional staff hours.
Apple is not the first company that decided to create a couple of layers between customer support and customers.
Re:What we have here... by immaterial · 2012-10-23 17:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

It sucks that he can't get through to the reviewers. That said, his app is clearly violating Apple's guidelines. There's no ambiguity or inconsistency here: you cannot use your app to direct users to buy things from you without using the in-app purchase system. (Yes, this requirement blows goats. But it is clear and straightforward.) He gets rejected once for directing users to purchase an account at their website in the app description. His solution to this isn't the logical step of *remove the offending bit*, it's *remove it and replace it with a button that does the same thing.* And he's surprised it gets rejected again? If ever he does get ahold of the review team, they aren't going to give a shit about his "but it isn't convenient or sensible for us or our users" excuse - of course it isn't! This rule wasn't convenient or sensible for the Kindle app either, but them's the rules in the walled garden and the reviewers aren't going to give him special treatment. (TBH I wouldn't be surprised if they ultra-low-prioritized his requests in favor of responding to developers who have actual fixable issues.)
Re:What we have here... by Serious+Callers+Only · 2012-10-23 17:46 · Score: 1, Insightful

This is all true (though note that if you're selling physical goods the rules are different, presumably because Apple don't want to own that space, yet).
It's also true that Apple is abusing their stranglehold on the market to try to wring all possible money out of developers, and cripple the software of competitors like Amazon and Google. That's not acceptable for users, developers, or a healthy ecosystem long-term, and we should continue to complain about it until they fix it.
Re:What we have here... by immaterial · 2012-10-23 18:10 · Score: 1

If only that's what this dev had been complaining about in his blog, instead of whining that nobody wants to approve his blatantly rule-breaking app. The in-app purchase rule is one of the more egregious ones and I'd love to see it go.
Re:What we have here... by Fallingcow · 2012-10-23 18:15 · Score: 1, Insightful

Yes, this requirement blows goats. But it is clear and straightforward.
It blows goats for both legitimate business (sort of—it creates a safer, consistent marketplace, which is a big part of why people are willing to spend money buying software and media on their iDevices, and that doesn't blow goats. Actually, I'd say it's a net benefit for most businesses) and for scammers.
It's good for Apple (obviously) and for most users most of the time.
Re:What we have here... by toutankh · 2012-10-23 18:35 · Score: 1

How exactly is this good for "most users"? If Apple takes its toll on every sale, then the price of everything rises so that the sellers can still make a benefit. Guess who pays for that?
Re:What we have here... by profplump · 2012-10-23 19:20 · Score: 1

The same way credit cards are good for "most users" -- for the convenience and security of using a trusted third party as a transaction moderator you pay a little extra for the transaction. You can argue that Apple shouldn't force people into this setup, or that their fees or too high, but it's ridiculous to argue that they add no value.
Re:What we have here... by toutankh · 2012-10-23 19:51 · Score: 1

I didn't argue that they add no value. The starting point is that the policy "blows goats", but that it's "good for most users". In other words, we're discussing the fact that, as you put it yourself, Apple forces people into their setup. I can perfectly understand that the added value is trust, but also that this trust comes as a price. I have more trouble understanding that forcing people into this setup is "good for most users". Let people decide for themselves what's good for them.
Re:What we have here... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 20:33 · Score: 0

Let people decide for themselves what's good for them.
good luck with that.
Re:What we have here... by bickerdyke · 2012-10-23 20:50 · Score: 1

you cannot use your app to direct users to buy things from you without using the in-app purchase system. (Yes, this requirement blows goats. But it is clear and straightforward.)
That may even be a sensible rule for both sides: users are usually already signed up to that shop system and used to it and trust it.

--
bickerdyke
Re:What we have here... by bickerdyke · 2012-10-23 20:52 · Score: 1

So how is this not like having to register your credit card with paypal, safebuy, click&buy and lots of other companies who take their cut from transactions, too?

--
bickerdyke
Re:What we have here... by Genda · 2012-10-23 21:01 · Score: 1

That's not acceptable for users, developers, or a healthy ecosystem long-term, and we should continue to complain about it until they fix it.
In other words, Till hell freezes over that the devils go ice skating...
Re:What we have here... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 22:04 · Score: 0

What we have here...Is failure to communicate.
What we have here ... Is a deliberate failure to communicate.
FTFY.
Explaining policies would expose inconsistencies and cost money in additional staff hours.
Apple is not the first company that decided to create a couple of layers between customer support and customers.
Oh shut the fuck up already. I'm a pretty big Apple hater, but even I'll admit that Apple's "stranglehold" has kept the overall quality of their apps pretty high. You don't have a shit ecosystem like we do on Google's shitty App store, which is constantly flooded with bullshit apps, fake apps, apps ripped off and re-posted, etc. Google tried to clean it up a little bit by adding the "featured developer" but a good number of those apps by supposedly "good, proven" developers are just as bad or worse.
If you don't like the process Apple uses for it's store, then STOP FUCKING DEVELOPING apps for it. Yes, it's really that simple. Tell your users "Sorry, but Apple are a pack of assholes so we aren't going to support the iPlatform... go bitch to them and if they change we'll do it." No, you're just letting yourself be pushed around, and whining about it on slashdot.
Put up or shut up.
Re:What we have here... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 22:09 · Score: 1

I didn't argue that they add no value. The starting point is that the policy "blows goats", but that it's "good for most users". In other words, we're discussing the fact that, as you put it yourself, Apple forces people into their setup. I can perfectly understand that the added value is trust, but also that this trust comes as a price. I have more trouble understanding that forcing people into this setup is "good for most users". Let people decide for themselves what's good for them.
You can. It's called the Google App Store. Sorry, "google play" (god that sounds like shit).
Problem is, the Google store also blows goats, for the opposite reason: it's almost impossible to tell the good stuff from the absolute shit. Hell, I barely even bother with free apps anymore, the reviews are pointless, nobody makes developers justify their security permissions, and there's almost no policing of the marketplace.
If you want to develop in the "wild west", go with Google. If you want the safe, clean city, go with Apple. But be warned- there's a pretty good chance your app is not nearly as awesome as YOU think it is, and you have to play by their rules.
Re:What we have here... by toutankh · 2012-10-23 22:35 · Score: 1

It is exactly the same. Apple just adds a layer. I'd let the users decide if yet another layer is a thing they want, but Apple won't let them.
Re:What we have here... by BasilBrush · 2012-10-24 00:32 · Score: 1

The in-app purchase rule is one of the more egregious ones and I'd love to see it go.
So a developer puts out a "free" app, which requires a paid account and that account is created and paid for away from the Apple App Store. How does Apple get paid for the bandwidth, and the service of listing the app on the store?
For sure, they've made it possible for developers who want to put genuinely free apps on the store. And for those, Apple eats the costs. But why should they do so for developers that are charging for their app (via off store paid accounts.)
Re:What we have here... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-24 00:54 · Score: 0

Correct. Not being able to buy a book in the Kindle or Nook apps is just idiotic because doing otherwise is not intuitive. That is also why I have not and will not buy books and other content from Apple using their apps.
Re:What we have here... by oobayly · 2012-10-24 01:35 · Score: 1

Well, they do use 3rd party apps to advertise how good their phone is. Of course, it's possible that the developers get paid for helping advertise Apple's products, can anyone comment?
Re:What we have here... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-24 02:21 · Score: 0

They get paid in increased sales due to free multi-million dollar marketing.
Re:What we have here... by squiggleslash · 2012-10-24 02:31 · Score: 1

In this particular case, the purchase, if done at all, is for some kind of a corporate account. It's hard to see that really working with the App Store model, something Apple appears to have overlooked.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:What we have here... by BitZtream · 2012-10-24 02:59 · Score: 1

Apple has no problem dealing with corporate accounts for the App Store in multiple ways from shared payment methods to site licenses for corp accounts if the developer wants to work that way.
Just because you have no idea what you're talking about doesn't mean there isn't a method in place to deal with the problem.

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Re:What we have here... by Karlt1 · 2012-10-24 04:09 · Score: 1

You realize Google, Microsoft. Amazon, Sony, Nintendo, etc. all require you to do in app purchases through their store -- don't you?
Re:What we have here... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-24 04:58 · Score: 0

Apple has a stranglehold on the market? But I thought Android was winning! Which is it? They can't both be true.
Re:What we have here... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-24 05:08 · Score: 0

So a developer puts out a "free" app, which requires a paid account and that account is created and paid for away from the Apple App Store. How does Apple get paid for the bandwidth, and the service of listing the app on the store?
Monetizing free apps is Apple's problem, not the developer's. Besides, Apple wouldn't have to distribute ANY free apps if they allowed other app stores.
Re:What we have here... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-24 05:27 · Score: 0

You realize you can distribute an apk off your own website, don't you?
Re:What we have here... by Fallingcow · 2012-10-24 05:43 · Score: 1

Apple obviously doesn't want to do that because they make money from the 30% fee, but also because this is another case where dropping walls on the garden would weaken the user experience. Allow other stores, and big players will drop their offerings from the Apple store, other apps will bail in favor of those stores, and before long the first thing the user has to do to get the apps they want on their iPad is install Google Play and the Amazon store and so on, putting iDevices in the same boat as everyone else.
Re:What we have here... by highphilosopher · 2012-10-24 07:09 · Score: 2

I can, but I don't want to on this subject.
Whining about the app store is like griping about a tattoo needle hurting.
You sat in their chair dumb@$$!
Re:What we have here... by highphilosopher · 2012-10-24 07:14 · Score: 1

If you've ever released any software to the public, you'd know tat the support of download/install management can be a nightmare.
Whether it's archaic shrink-wrap software, or even web-downloaded, you have to have purchase program, website setup, and all the other trappings. This is assuming that the people will buy from you (since you really did buy that SSL Cert from GoDaddy for $30 per year right?)
Getting the ease of delivery that an App Store offers (no matter who runs it), is the huge benefit for BOTH developers AND customers. Apple takes some off the top, yes, but 30% is a lot less than you'll spend on your own storefront (brick or web) for sure.
Re:What we have here... by Karlt1 · 2012-10-24 08:37 · Score: 1

"You realize you can distribute an apk off your own website, don't you?"
Let me know how that works out for you....
Re:What we have here... by lazybeam · 2012-10-24 10:59 · Score: 1

I was thinking about Apple's "cut". I usually buy iTunes cards from a retail shop when they are on special: often $30 for 2x$20 cards or $40 for a $50 card. Who is eating this "shortfall"? The cards themselves are not free, the shop can't be making a loss, so how much would Apple actually make from these cards? If I then buy an app for $40, the developer gets $28, so there isn't much available in the $2 difference!

--
-- no sig for you. come back one year.
Re:What we have here... by Plumpaquatsch · 2012-10-24 11:57 · Score: 1

Ohh, and you forgot to mention that Google (and Amazon) also ask the same 30% the OP complained about.

--
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Re:What we have here... by Plumpaquatsch · 2012-10-24 12:28 · Score: 1

You realize you can distribute an apk off your own website, don't you?
Sure. But how would you then make people know about your app? You could of course spread some story how Apple refused your app and how you are now forced to sell it on your own site ...

--
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Re:What we have here... by sjames · 2012-10-24 14:50 · Score: 1

Sure, it violates policy, but when policy is automated and nobody can or will explain it much less override it, you get Brazil.
Re:What we have here... by sjames · 2012-10-24 15:05 · Score: 1

The thing is, the rule he 'breaks' really doesn't fit what they are doing at all. As he clearly pointed out, the process of setting up an institutional account for the app isn't a click and drool operation and apparently REQUIRES out-of-band communication.
Re:What we have here... by BasilBrush · 2012-10-24 23:17 · Score: 1

They certainly get asked. And of course no one would say no because it's amazing free advertising for the app.
Re:What we have here... by Serious+Callers+Only · 2012-10-28 03:43 · Score: 1

Apple has a stranglehold on the market? But I thought Android was winning! Which is it? They can't both be true.
Here's a free hit with the clue stick - the comments here on Slashdot are from more than one person, their views are not homogenous.

Yes, it sucks by solidtransient · 2012-10-23 15:18 · Score: 5, Interesting

I can tell you from going through numerous reviews that it's a terribly inconsistent process and has lead to a lot of frustration. I've been denied before for extremely petty reasons, only to get through on the 3rd or 4th try. Good luck trying to get an idea of how long it will take also. It has taken 45 days or longer from initial submission to being 'ready for sale'. I understand they want to keep control of their market, but their denials really interfere with my motivation to continue developing on their platform. However, on Android I've made far far less revenue on the same apps, only to see my app get 'returned' daily and probably pirated. It's worth the pain still at this point to hit iOS first and Android afterwards, especially to make 3X to 4X revenue on iOS. It's why I hope Microsoft's approvals for Win 8 and RT can be somewhere in the middle.

--
firestream.net

Re:Yes, it sucks by jtownatpunk.net · 2012-10-23 15:45 · Score: 5, Interesting

Serious question: How does Win8's fragmentation figure in your decision to potentially develop for their mobile platforms?
From what I can tell, to have full support across all of their portable devices, you'll need to have 3 versions of each app. One for the Windows Phone 8, one for Windows RT 8, and one for x86/x64 Windows 8. I've seen reports that RT tablets won't be able to run phone apps and phones won't be able to run RT apps so that means two ARM builds. And there are also a lot of x86 tablets in the pipeline that will be running the full x86 32 and 64 bit versions of Windows 8 so you'll need to cover them, too.
Seems like that would be a significant barrier to entry unless Microsoft has provided some pretty strong tools to port between platforms.
Re:Yes, it sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 17:01 · Score: 0

I can tell you from going through numerous reviews that it's a terribly inconsistent process and has lead to a lot of frustration. I've been denied before for extremely petty reasons, only to get through on the 3rd or 4th try. Good luck trying to get an idea of how long it will take also. It has taken 45 days or longer from initial submission to being 'ready for sale'. I understand they want to keep control of their market, but their denials really interfere with my motivation to continue developing on their platform.
However, on Android I've made far far less revenue on the same apps, only to see my app get 'returned' daily and probably pirated. It's worth the pain still at this point to hit iOS first and Android afterwards, especially to make 3X to 4X revenue on iOS. It's why I hope Microsoft's approvals for Win 8 and RT can be somewhere in the middle.
Maybe your apps suck, that's why you see them getting "returned" daily.
Somehow I doubt that the swiftkey developers (who develop on Android) are seeing a lot of their app being returned. You know, code something that's useful and at a good price point and it will sell.
As for apps being pirated, you can an easily jailbreak an ipad/ipod/iwhatever and get "free" aps as well.
Apple users are not a measure of virtue.
Re:Yes, it sucks by Osty · 2012-10-23 17:18 · Score: 5, Informative

From what I can tell, to have full support across all of their portable devices, you'll need to have 3 versions of each app. One for the Windows Phone 8, one for Windows RT 8, and one for x86/x64 Windows 8. I've seen reports that RT tablets won't be able to run phone apps and phones won't be able to run RT apps so that means two ARM builds. And there are also a lot of x86 tablets in the pipeline that will be running the full x86 32 and 64 bit versions of Windows 8 so you'll need to cover them, too.
It depends on how you're writing your app. If you use the HTML5+JS framework or C#, you can write platform-neutral apps that will run on x86, x64, and ARM Windows 8 machines (including RT). You of course also have the option of specifically targeting one or more platform, which is good for games, but I would expect most apps will be platform neutral
That gets you down to two platforms -- Windows 8 and Windows Phone 8. The Windows Phone 8 SDK has yet to be released except to hand-picked developers under strict NDA, so nobody really knows what's in there yet. It could be binary-compatible with Windows 8. We just don't know.
Re:Yes, it sucks by Bogtha · 2012-10-23 22:31 · Score: 4, Informative

Yes, I'm an app developer and quite a few of the apps I've built have had to go through the approval process, and it can be extremely inconsistent and frustrating.
There have been times when Apple have rejected an app with what is for all intents and purposes zero feedback. There have been times when the only person I have communicated with has admitted that they haven't actually used the app. There have been times when they have rejected an app for things that aren't in their rules. They have been times when they have rejected an app for doing things in a certain (sensible, not against the rules) way, and have refused to tell me if the alternative approach we were considering was acceptable to them or not. There have been times when they have rejected an app for something that is present in a great deal of other apps. There have been times when I've been pretty sure that for whatever reason, the reviewer has psychological issues and decided he hates us. And there have been times when they have reviewed and approved an app almost straight away.
Apple's biggest problem is not so much the inconsistency as the terrible communication. When dealing with things at their scale, there's bound to be fuckups. If something gets rejected, I can't simply drop somebody an email saying "Er, I think you've made a mistake here", or "If that's no good, how about this?" I've got to go through an appeals process, and I've got to type up the appeal in a shitty web form coded by somebody who's halfway through reading Web Development for Dummies. And at the end of it, it's quite likely that I'll still get no useful information.

--
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
Re:Yes, it sucks by RaceProUK · 2012-10-23 23:37 · Score: 1

Serious question: How does Win8's fragmentation figure in your decision to potentially develop for their mobile platforms?
If you're developing for WinRT, you're already developing for the full-fat Win8 - they both run the full RT environment. You're now down to two platforms, same as Apple (iOS and OSX). So you'll still want to produce two apps, simply because of the different form factors.

--
No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
Re:Yes, it sucks by csumpi · 2012-10-24 00:10 · Score: 1

iOS is not any better, either.

You have to support 2 (or 3) different phone screens and 2 tablet screens. And interface builder sucks balls. And just hope you won't have to localize.

Is it a phone? Does it have front facing camera? What video resolutions are supported? Can it even record video? Does it have gyroscope? Accelerometer? GPS? ... the list goes on.

On top of it, xcode 4.x sucks. And crashes. It's an embarrassment.

On the other hand, Visual Studio is the best development environment, hands down. So you know what? M$ might be onto something here.
Re:Yes, it sucks by BasilBrush · 2012-10-24 00:39 · Score: 1

And interface builder sucks balls. And just hope you won't have to localize.
Interface builder is great. What's your problem with localisation?
Re:Yes, it sucks by BasilBrush · 2012-10-24 00:59 · Score: 2

Is it a phone? Does it have front facing camera? What video resolutions are supported? Can it even record video? Does it have gyroscope? Accelerometer? GPS? ... the list goes on.
You have to design separately for phone and tablet. (And that's true for any quality app for any other platform too.) Within those two categories supporting the differing resolution on iOS is simple. Just provide extra copies of any bitmaps you use, at double the resolution, with @2x appended on the filename. Everything else just works.
The taller screen of the iPhone4 is pretty easy to deal with too, as most app screens tend to be table views, again there's nothing to be done.
Depending on the app you may have to check the specifics of the hardware on most other platforms too. At least with iOS there are a small number of such differences. The Android permutations for example are far greater.
And MS? They seem to completely change direction on mobile every couple of years, so good luck with that. Dev Studio is nice, but you wouldn't choose a development platform based on slight preferences of IDEs.
Re:Yes, it sucks by BasilBrush · 2012-10-24 01:16 · Score: 2

There's two sides to every story. We don't get to hear Apple's side. And I don't know it, but can only surmise...
Apple are approving more than 500 new apps every day. And many more updates of the existing apps. We're talking about a process that needs production line levels of streamlining.
If there's the facility to start an email discussion when apps are rejected, and nobody wants to wait another 8 days, then app reviewers are going to end up deluged in email to be answered rather than getting on reviewing more app submissions. And for what? In virtually every case, the app is going to remain denied because it still breaches the rules.
As you say, they have a formal appeals process for when you believe an app reviewer makes a mistake. Apple have to formalise the process in this way to make it manageable for the scale they are dealing with.
Re:Yes, it sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-24 02:14 · Score: 0

Yet so many others have no problems with the things you list.
Maybe *you* just suck. Ponder that for a while.
Re:Yes, it sucks by aitan · 2012-10-24 02:42 · Score: 2

However, on Android I've made far far less revenue on the same apps, only to see my app get 'returned' daily and probably pirated.
So your apps are returned in Android and you blame that on piracy.
But the fact is that the user only has 15 minutes to return the app and if he plans to pirate it, why would he bother on buying it at all?,
Pirates won't ever bother inserting their credit card on Google Play and go straight to the alternative markets and when people are returning your app after just 15 minutes then it's clear that there's something wrong with your app and you shouldn't blame anyone else but you about that
Are your apps those that are simple ports from iOS and that lacks total respect for the Android UI and environment?
It's funny to see how people claim how iOS is much more stylish and when they port an app to Android they try to force such iOS UI and of course people rejects those abominations
Re:Yes, it sucks by Trent+Hawkins · 2012-10-24 02:47 · Score: 1

Same here. Absolutely no no reason given for the refusal, best you can do is just re-submit the same thing multiple times until some drone approves you. It's totally arbitrary most of the time.
Re:Yes, it sucks by jtownatpunk.net · 2012-10-24 04:24 · Score: 1

Thanks. That helps put it in perspective.
Re:Yes, it sucks by TheSpoom · 2012-10-24 05:13 · Score: 1

I'm going the platform-neutral HTML 5 route now. It's not quite ready for prime time, but I'm betting on it being ready very soon.

--
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Re:Yes, it sucks by Goaway · 2012-10-24 08:34 · Score: 1

You have to support 2 (or 3) different phone screens and 2 tablet screens.
No, you have to support two different phone screens, one tablet screen, and two DPI settings. The DPI settings are fairly trivial, and just require you to provide double-resolution images.
Re:Yes, it sucks by csumpi · 2012-10-24 09:38 · Score: 1

I don't see how what you said differs from what I said. Just because you put half of the work behind a just, doesn't nullify it.

If you have done it before, you must know it's not just running your images through a 50% scale. Unless you don't care what the output looks like.
Re:Yes, it sucks by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-10-24 13:20 · Score: 1

Even if you write in C++, you can still build very easily for ARM, x86 and x64 from the same codebase with zero changes.
Re:Yes, it sucks by strikethree · 2012-10-25 17:56 · Score: 1

Hm? I have been hearing that Windows 8 and Windows 8 RT are not API compatible. How will you write a C# program for both platforms? God only knows what Windows Phone 8 will look like.

--
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Re:Yes, it sucks by Osty · 2012-10-25 20:25 · Score: 1

I have been hearing that Windows 8 and Windows 8 RT are not API compatible
I don't know where you heard that. The modern app WinRT framework (not to be confused with Windows RT, the name of the ARM version of the Windows 8 OS) is completely cross-architecture, and any language you write with targeting it (HTML5+JS, C#+XAML, C++) can also be cross-architecture. Of course you can choose to do architecture-specific stuff, or reference architecture-specific libraries that would limit where your app can run, but that would be a conscious choice on your part.
I suspect you've confused the fact that Windows RT for ARM does not allow you to write or install non-Modern third-party apps, which means no desktop apps for you besides the built-in Windows stuff (notepad, desktop IE, etc) and Office. That is not related to Modern apps at all.

God only knows what Windows Phone 8 will look like
Given that Microsoft couldn't figure out resolution-independent UI for Windows 8, my completely speculative guess is that it'll be similar to the Wnidows 8 WinRT API set, but require you to build a different GUI. Kind of like how WP7 supported (mostly) the same XNA as Xbox 360 and Windows, but you still had to redo the display (and control) portion to make it work on the phone. Code is shared, but two separate and distinct binaries would need to be built to support both platforms.
But we won't know anything until Microsoft releases the WP8 SDK. Hopefully that will be today (10/26), but we'll see.
Re:Yes, it sucks by Goaway · 2012-10-25 22:37 · Score: 1

The point is that you do not separately have to support high-DPI screens on the iPhone and on the iPad. There are less combinations than you implied.
Re:Yes, it sucks by csumpi · 2012-10-26 02:24 · Score: 1

Ok, so let's take a look.

This little piggy went to the market: Retina 3.5 - Create all xibs, and images at x2. Added bonus here is that all coordinates have to be divided by 2.

This little piggy stayed at home: Low res 3.5 - All images from above scaled to 50%. This can be done with a script, but then everythong has to be checked on a low res 3.5 screen to make sure that text and art still looks good. Fix ones that are not.

This little piggy had roast beef: Retina 4 - aka iPhone5. This screen is larger, so if pre iOS6.0 has to be supported (currently still about 40% of the market), a separate xib has to be made. Most likely some x2 art from above will look funny, or backgrounds need extending, so take care of that, too.

This little piggy had none: iPad retina - create xibs and x2 images. This is a much larger screen, so most likely this is a completely new setup.

And this little piggy went... wee wee wee all the way home: before new iPad - this uses the same xibs as above, art again rescaled to half size with a script. Then all art checked on device, and ones that look funny (like text for example) fixed.

So that's wee wee wee all the way home... setups with wee wee wee lots of fun (not). Which is what you said and what I said. And it's a LOT of freaking work.

Why? by Black+Parrot · 2012-10-23 15:21 · Score: 1, Insightful

Why is everyone clamoring for an opportunity to support The Beast?

If you hate the walled garden, don't ask to be let in.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade

Re:Why? by geekboybt · 2012-10-23 15:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

That's simple: the walled garden is where the money is.
Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 15:31 · Score: 0

Short, simple answer.
Money.
If you get in on the Apple App store, you stand to make far more money than you do on the equivalent in the Android space. This alone makes up for a great many sins, at least from the perspective of the developers.
Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 15:34 · Score: 0

Quite simply, to get paid.
You see, 99% of all apps are utter useless shite. That's for both iOS and Android. So, the developers prefer iOS because they get paid, and it really doesn't matter to them whether you subsequently use their shitty app or not.
The guys with the good stuff, can easily make as much money on Google Play as they do on iTunes. The guys with shit you install and use for 2 days before deleting or ignoring it, their only choice is iTunes.
Re:Why? by MichaelSmith · 2012-10-23 15:41 · Score: 3, Funny

Why is everyone clamoring for an opportunity to support The Beast?
They stabbed it with their steely knives but they Just Can't Kill The Beast, so its still the best game in town.

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Re:Why? by narcc · 2012-10-23 15:53 · Score: 3, Informative

If only that were true...
Sure, if your app is a hit, there's no better place to be.
Unfortunately, 2/3's of iOS apps have never been downloaded, and less than 1% of iOS apps earn over $1000.

--
Required reading for internet skeptics
Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 15:53 · Score: 1

Because they read stories on yahoo about kids who don't even know how to code making half a million a year selling cheat codes for popular games wrapped in an 'app'.
Anecdote. I have a friend with an iPhone. He asked me "Did you have to pay a dollar for Bad Piggies?" I replied "No, it was free. Is it a dollar on the iPhone?" He then looked sad. I felt a little sorry for him.
Re:Why? by mjwx · 2012-10-23 15:54 · Score: 1, Interesting

That's simple: the walled garden is where the marketing is.
FTFY,

Most developers dont make back the $99/y fee to list their application let alone the cost of buying a Mac.

The only application developers making money are the developers making applications for those foolish enough to pay them, there is no money in selling direct to consumers.

The only mobile development business model that works is consulting, by selling their services as developers not by selling on the app store so in this regard profitability is platform independent (in fact Android is better as it has a longer development time, meaning more hours charged to the client).

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Re:Why? by Guy+Harris · 2012-10-23 15:55 · Score: 2

They stabbed it with their steely knives but they Just Can't Kill The Beast, so its still the best game in town.
If your app is approved, do they serve you pink champagne on ice?
Re:Why? by MichaelSmith · 2012-10-23 16:11 · Score: 2

Of course. We are all just prisoners here, of our own device.

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Re:Why? by Black+Parrot · 2012-10-23 16:21 · Score: 1

Of course. We are all just prisoners here, of our own device.
Hotel California: what you get when you breed Stairway to Heaven and The Rocky Horror Picture Show.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:Why? by geekboybt · 2012-10-23 16:24 · Score: 2

App authors can also expect a greater payout from iOS compared with Android, with Apple's mobile operating system delivering developers four times the revenue as their Android counterpart per user, Flurry found.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57449358-37/ios-still-tops-android-with-app-developers/
I don't disagree with you at all; there's tons of apps that are, frankly, garbage. But even if your app is genuinely good, given the amount of "noise" in the store, you must also get lucky to be seen and discovered amongst all of the junk.
Re:Why? by evil_aaronm · 2012-10-23 16:29 · Score: 1

Could those low numbers be due to poor marketing? Poor usefulness? No real problem to solve? I could write an app that just stay black, and it may be so black that there was none more black, but it would still be a completely useless app. Hey, I'm now inspired. Coming soon to the App Store: None More Black!
Re:Why? by evil_aaronm · 2012-10-23 16:31 · Score: 1

As far as apps go, if you're writing something that no one wants to buy, I don't think your platform is to blame.
Re:Why? by ThatsMyNick · 2012-10-23 17:05 · Score: 1

It is like complaining about government procurement process and bureaucracy. It is true that one can opt to not try and get government contracts. But it is still a valid complaint. Making the process unpredictable and unnecessarily cumbersome does not really help any one.
Re:Why? by capedgirardeau · 2012-10-23 17:40 · Score: 1

The other issue I have been told about by an iOS developer is that often time, if you have a somewhat successful app, a larger, better staffed and funded development house can just essentially copy it and push their version of your app to their existing installed user base.
Obviously this is second hand, but considering well known developers have been caught doing exactly that, I tend to believe him.

--
Wax on, wax off baby!
Re:Why? by thsths · 2012-10-23 19:59 · Score: 2

There is more truth in this than it first appears. Apple wants 30% of your profits with the app - and that may be fine for retail software, but it is hardly acceptable for specialist software. Then again the app store is designed for a general audience, not for specialist software.
I think the logical conclusion is that specialist software should not be distributed over the app store. It should be side loaded.
Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 20:04 · Score: 0

You Sir, are what's wrong with the Internet. Provide a reference for something so inflammatory.
Re:Why? by beelsebob · 2012-10-23 22:30 · Score: 1

Most developers dont make back the $99/y fee to list their application let alone the cost of buying a Mac.
I disagree, when I first started iOS dev, I did a couple of trivial little test apps, sold for $0.99, with little more than a screen or two, and only extremely basic functionality. Even these sold hundreds of copies, and easily make my dev fee back year on year.
Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-24 00:02 · Score: 0

If you're gonna h8 on me, have the courage to not post AC.
I HATE you for using "h8" as a legitimate way of saying "hate". And I'm posting AC just to spite you.
Re:Why? by drinkypoo · 2012-10-24 00:21 · Score: 1

I seem to have displaced my copy of the lyrics to SCO Machine Room...

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Why? by NJRoadfan · 2012-10-24 00:32 · Score: 1

Great, now my app "Pocket Black Hole" will be rejected.
Re:Why? by NJRoadfan · 2012-10-24 00:36 · Score: 1

On that note. How do retail companies that use the iPad as Point-of-Sale devices distribute their software? Can anyone download them, or can you restrict app distribution to certain Apple accounts?
Re:Why? by BitZtream · 2012-10-24 05:23 · Score: 1

Think about that for a second ... you feel sorry for him?
What is it with you people? You're phone is so unpopular that no one bothers to charge for crap on it. No one stands in line for it, its never been 'on a wait'. Thats not something to be impressed by. You're all gaga over something no one else gives a shit about. All you're doing is showing how you truely don't understand the world around you.

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Re:Why? by immaterial · 2012-10-24 07:45 · Score: 1

It's possible to restrict distribution using the B2B distribution method (this is different from the in-house Enterprise distribution method) but that's not the way POS apps do it. POS apps are all on the normal App Store for free (well, all the major ones I've tested, obviously that wouldn't include custom in-house implementations). But in order to work they require you have an account on the POS vendor's cloud (this is how transactions are recorded across devices, etc.), and that account is something you have to pay for (for example $1,499 one-time license per location and $49 per iPad per month).
Re:Why? by Plumpaquatsch · 2012-10-24 08:41 · Score: 1

If only that were true...
Sure, if your app is a hit, there's no better place to be.
Unfortunately, 2/3's of iOS apps have never been downloaded, and less than 1% of iOS apps earn over $1000.
Gee, how convenient that the marketing company releasing those statistics only offer their app marketing services only for the App Store, else we would know the sorry state of the Android app scene. You know I can tell? They don't bother to offer their marketing services for Android apps.

--
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.

Huh? by cheater512 · 2012-10-23 15:28 · Score: 0

"also provides excellent development tools for coding, testing, debugging, and distribution for free along with your developer subscription ($99/yr)."

Wtf is he smoking. They aren't free tools. They are $99/yr tools. He said it right there.

Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 15:32 · Score: 1

To be fair, you can download the tools for free; the $99 fee is only really required to submit things to the app store
Re:Huh? by feedayeen · 2012-10-23 15:32 · Score: 1

"also provides excellent development tools for coding, testing, debugging, and distribution for free along with your developer subscription ($99/yr)."
Wtf is he smoking. They aren't free tools. They are $99/yr tools. He said it right there.
Now that you pay $99/year for it, it's free. Just like my car, computer, and all of my assets except for, no, even utilities are free once I pay for them.
Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 15:33 · Score: 0

He say's it's free because it's free.
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/xcode/id497799835?mt=12
Re:Huh? by ATMAvatar · 2012-10-23 15:33 · Score: 2

$99/yr plus the cost of a mac to program it on.

--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Re:Huh? by cheater512 · 2012-10-23 15:45 · Score: 1

Ah so here is a free car, but it is $30,000 for the engine.
I can see that marketing campaign really take off.
Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 15:49 · Score: 0

No, XCode (the tools) are free. $99 is for the iOS developer program (the distribution part), but you can download XCode without signing up for this.
It is, however, significantly inferior to Visual Studio + Visual Assist, so the "excellent" part is, IMHO, not exactly true. :)
Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 16:15 · Score: 0

No, it's more like the car is free but you have to pay annual license and registration if you want to drive it.
Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 16:29 · Score: 0

No the car is free, you can also drive it for free. If you want to drive it a specific toll road then you pay the toll.
Re:Huh? by evil_aaronm · 2012-10-23 16:34 · Score: 2, Informative

Not true. You get the compiler and debugger for free with which you can create all of the apps you want. You can also upload your own iOS apps that you write to your own iOS device. If you want to sell to others, then you need to pay the entry fee.

So, your car, your engine. If you want to provide livery service, then you need a license.
Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 17:10 · Score: 0

To be fair, you can download the tools for free; the $99 fee is only really required to submit things to the app store
You can download the tools for free and do nothing with them UNLESS you pay 99$ a year to be able to put your app on the fucking mobile apple device. Otherwise you're just coding to make your app run on an emulator on your mac. Which is just stupid.
So no, the tools are not free.
Re:Huh? by phantomfive · 2012-10-23 17:16 · Score: 1

Wtf is he smoking. They aren't free tools. They are $99/yr tools. He said it right there.
My iOS development for the last year has been exclusively for jailbroken devices. I haven't paid a cent to Apple for dev tools.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Huh? by Sycraft-fu · 2012-10-23 17:25 · Score: 1

Ya my co-worker hit that problem. I don't remember the details as to why, but he was looking at iPhone app development. Someone asked him to do something or the like (he's a Linux sysadmin by trade). However a stumbling block to this is lacking a Mac. They aren't precisely cheap devices to get your hands on. Cheapest you can find is $600 for a Mac Mini, which does not feature $600 worth of hardware.
A former co-worker actually ran in to the same thing, and ended up getting a Mac as part of a contract. A guy had hired him to do various web development as a side job, that paid reasonably well. He then wanted an iOS app developed. My co-worker tried OS-X in VMWare but it didn't work well, so he told the guy "Fine I'll do it, but part of the contract is you have to buy me a Mac Mini up front, and I get to keep it." Guy went for it and all was well.
Does provide a bit more of a cost/barrier for entry though, if you aren't already a Mac person.
Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 17:49 · Score: 1

You can write Mac apps, or compile open source software, use Xcode as a text editor, etc...
All things I use the dev tools for without paying to enter the developer program.
If I did pay the money to enter the dev program I get privileges like, pre-release versions of the OS's, pre-release versions of the dev tools, access to the stores, etc...
Re:Huh? by Sepodati · 2012-10-23 19:34 · Score: 1

Have you made any money or built up a good user base?
Re:Huh? by phantomfive · 2012-10-23 20:02 · Score: 1

Yes, but my situation is not normal, since I write code for a company that sells jailbroken devices directly to corporate customers.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Huh? by jeremyp · 2012-10-23 21:02 · Score: 1

As others have already said, the tools are free, the $99 is needed to run youre apps on a real device rather than the simulator and to submit apps to the app store.
I have to say that all this whining about paying $99 makes me smile a bit. At my company's charge out rate for me, that represents something less than an hour's time. The first C compiler I bought for a PC cost me something like £400 in 1995, which, with inflation is about 10 years of subscription to the Apple Developer programme.

--
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
Re:Huh? by cheater512 · 2012-10-23 22:16 · Score: 1

Yes but did everyone go around calling it free? Probably not.
Its not a fuss about paying for software, its a fuss about people saying its not quite as free as say the competition.
Re:Huh? by bhagwad · 2012-10-23 23:33 · Score: 2

Oh? We can distribute iOS apps on something other than the app store? Your "toll road" happens to be the only road in existence.
Re:Huh? by Ash+Vince · 2012-10-23 23:52 · Score: 1

Yes, but my situation is not normal, since I write code for a company that sells jailbroken devices directly to corporate customers.
Surely that is illegal?
I can't believe Apple would miss a trick and actually allow that to happen unless you buy them direct from Apple under some special licence agreement that costs 10 times as much as a normal device.
If they went after PsyStar you can be dam sure they are coming after you guys :)

--
I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-24 02:05 · Score: 0

The developer tools do not require the subscription.
The subscription is just the right to install test builds on real hardware and upload for sale.
Re:Huh? by caseih · 2012-10-24 02:47 · Score: 1

Illegal? Are you kidding? This situation has absolutely nothing in common with the PsyStar case. Selling an HTC phone with a hack for iOS to run on it, that would be the PsyStar case. As for this company, first sale doctrine is the primary law that they operate under. Apple could probably cut off app store access for devices they thought were sold this way, but other than that I can't see any other legal recourse for Apple. And why should they interfere? A sale is a sale, and whoever receives the device is at least as likely to buy something through the App Store as with a device from a direct channel.
Re:Huh? by phantomfive · 2012-10-24 03:25 · Score: 1

Surely that is illegal?
Doubtful, under what law do you think it's illegal?

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Huh? by phantomfive · 2012-10-24 03:26 · Score: 1

As for this company, first sale doctrine is the primary law that they operate under.

I would like to point out here that this is backwards, laws do not make things legal, they make them illegal. Things are legal by default. The government needs to find a law to prosecute someone, you don't need to find a law to prove your innocence.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."

They don't need you by Gothmolly · 2012-10-23 15:31 · Score: 1, Insightful

Apple is dealing from a position of strength. They don't need you.

--
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.

Re:They don't need you by darkfeline · 2012-10-23 15:52 · Score: 0

Apple is in a position of strength because developers (pay to) write apps for it. Sure, it doesn't "need" you, but one day when its policies drive all the devs to greener pastures, Apple will be forced to face reality.
Re:They don't need you by mjwx · 2012-10-23 15:58 · Score: 1

Apple is dealing from a position of strength. They don't need you.
This is a great excuse, until you realise that Apple's strength is derived from the applications others have written for it.

Apple is not like Google where there is a series of services behind the OS (Gmail, YouTube, Maps) that customers rely on (realistically, without Google integrating Maps and Gmail into Android, it would not be doing half as well as it is now).

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Re:They don't need you by iCEBaLM · 2012-10-23 16:42 · Score: 2

This is a great excuse, until you realise that Apple's strength is derived from the applications others have written for it.
Not so, actually. iOS devices were hits before they even allowed native apps to run on them.
Re:They don't need you by AmiMoJo · 2012-10-23 23:25 · Score: 1

Your logic is obviously flawed because if they ditch apps now they couldn't compete. Apps have become essential to iOS's success.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:They don't need you by iCEBaLM · 2012-10-23 23:45 · Score: 1

There's no evidence for that. They competed, and won, against devices which did allow native apps to run when apple didn't.
Re:They don't need you by drinkypoo · 2012-10-24 00:19 · Score: 1

Five words for you, bucko. "There's an app for that."
Without apps, no platform can survive. Or, you know, at least some of us would still be running GEOS.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:They don't need you by iCEBaLM · 2012-10-24 11:42 · Score: 1

Five words for you, bucko. "There's an app for that."
They advertized it because it was much requested. That's not evidence that without them they would lose.
Without apps, no platform can survive.
Sure, if an iphone or an ipod touch were just blank slate iOS running handheld computers without any functionality, but this is not the case. These products were not designed or meant to be platforms, they were meant to be fully functional, out of the box devices.
Apple was peddling toasters, not OS/2.
Re:They don't need you by drinkypoo · 2012-10-24 14:33 · Score: 1

They advertized it because it was much requested. That's not evidence that without them they would lose.
[...]
they were meant to be fully functional, out of the box devices.
Right, and the market spoke, and the word the market spoke was "Apps", and if you think that iOS would be a success without apps compared to competition with apps, you are nucking futs.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:They don't need you by iCEBaLM · 2012-10-25 14:53 · Score: 1

You're talking about iOS, I'm talking about iOS devices, and yes, the iphone and the ipod touch would still be hits without third party apps.

Apple's already got fart apps and Angry Birds... by Andy+Prough · 2012-10-23 15:31 · Score: 1

...what else do they really need? Might as well be selective with the rest of the cruft.

Worst Part? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 15:33 · Score: 1

I thought the worst part was the 30% they take off the top.

Re:Worst Part? by tlhIngan · 2012-10-23 17:42 · Score: 1

I thought the worst part was the 30% they take off the top.
For its price, 30% is fairly cheap in the end. Amazon takes 50+% off the top for books (standard wholesale rates - why do you think Amazon can always offer books 30% off?), and probably very similar things happen for eBooks. We know it's about 30% for eBooks under $10, and it's more over $10 (to encourage people to price books at under $10), easily 50% or higher.
Microsoft and Sony charge more for their stores and DLC. I can't tell you about Steam, but it's probably less, mostly because they don't have to recoup 30 cents + 1-5% off 99 cents (when you sell for $10+, 30 cents per transaction plus 1-5% of transaction value isn't much). Though I suppose it'll probably change if Steam gets a bunch of 99 cent apps and Valve starts having to subsidize transaction fees (usually there's a table of fees - like if it's below $5, it's 30%, if it's below $10, it's say, 20%, etc).
Of course, the difficulties in hosting a bunch of apps (most of which are free so cost you money per download) plus the maintenance of all the equipment and the necessary security (PCI-DSS, even moreso because you're storing a LOT of personal data so people can buy in the future without re-entry of credit cards).
And gift cards... free money on interest, except well, considering iTunes cards are routinely 20% off ($50 iTunes card for $40) means the retailer's profit and Apple's expenses are paid from the leftover 10% (probalby 50-50).
If it was easy, then why are only the big guys hosting stores - if you can run an Android app store taking only 10% off the top, you should be a big hit.
As for the store where 1% make money - Apple paid out $6.5B to developers. If only 7000 apps made money (1% of roughly 700,000 apps), that's over $900,000 that each of those 7,000 apps made. So you have a 1% of getting a million bucks for say, a $2000 investiment. If you try 100 times, that's $200,000 in new equipment, to get $900,000. That seems like a risk. Or it could just be faulty numbers. Sure people may claim 1% of apps make money, but if it was true, it's well worth the risk. Even as a VC I can see if I can invest in 100 app companies for $2000 hardware to get 1 of them earning 900K, that's an extremely good value proposition. So the numbers are faulty, because we know a handful made over $1M, and most apps probably make a few thousand dollars (the ones that require payment - upfront or in-app).
And app store or no - there is always a need to do marketing and advertising. You can't put it up and they will come - you must advertise. Sorry, but if people don't know if your app exists, they can't find it. Word of mouth, send some review copies around, etc. We are not yet in an age where advertising and marketing are superfluous, no matter what anybody says. (And yes, being on the front page of iTunes or featured apps are marketing as well.)

HERE'S A NOVEL IDEA !! DO NOT PUBLISH CRAP APPS !! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 15:36 · Score: 0

And ye shall overcome !!

This is why iPADS are not business ready by fluffy99 · 2012-10-23 15:45 · Score: 1, Insightful

The cited IT World article (http://www.itworld.com/it-consumerization/306090/apple-ios-app-review-frustrating-and-bad-your-health) is a lesson in why you don't try to use iPAD as an enterprise platform for home-grown specialized software. You simply don't have enough control over the device or the ability to get the software onto the device. Need to update the app in real time, you are at the mercy of Apple regardless of how nit-picky you think the reviewers are.

Re:This is why iPADS are not business ready by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 16:01 · Score: 5, Informative

Um. No. It's simple to set up enterprise distribution with your provisioning profile, which will allow you install any of your signed apps on any of your devices. You can even push the apps OTA.
Have a clue before you make stuff up.
Re:This is why iPADS are not business ready by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 16:22 · Score: 0

Read this
Re:This is why iPADS are not business ready by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 17:06 · Score: 0

Er, no.
Anything remotely enterprise and you point the ipad at your server
Re:This is why iPADS are not business ready by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 17:15 · Score: 0

Summary of your comment: "I don't know what I'm talking about."
Re:This is why iPADS are not business ready by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 17:46 · Score: 1

Anything remotely enterprise and you point the ipad at your server
$299 / year. Non-US companies cannot subscribe.
Re:This is why iPADS are not business ready by immaterial · 2012-10-23 18:28 · Score: 1

If your company can afford to hire developers to develop an in-house app, it can afford the $299 per year (if your company is so tiny, a regular developer account is allowed ad-hoc distribution for up to 100 devices). And as far as I can tell, your US-only claim is entirely incorrect (there's a fourth distribution method, Custom B2B, that requires access to Apple's Volume Purchasing Program which so far is only available in the US. Perhaps you were confused).
Re:This is why iPADS are not business ready by drkstr1 · 2012-10-23 18:29 · Score: 0

Um. No. It's simple to set up enterprise distribution with your provisioning profile, which will allow you install any of your signed apps on any of your devices. You can even push the apps OTA.
Have a clue before you make stuff up.
You are the one without a clue. We are a small company that develops (among other things) internal training software for much larger corporations. Using the enterprise license, we are only allowed to install on our own devices, and not the client's. Only the Volume Purchasing Program will work for our business model, which puts us entirely at Apple's mercy to deliver our products. We are so fed up with the process, we spent the last year stripping functionality so we can make it work as a web app.

--
Fanboy Status: Apache Flex, C#, Eclipse, KDE, Pirate Party, Ron Paul, Slackware, Windows 7
Re:This is why iPADS are not business ready by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 19:06 · Score: 0

No, YOU are without a clue! I belong to a moderately-sized company that develops internal software for enterprise use. The first thing we tell our clients is to purchase an Enterprise iOS development account for themselves, because all apps we develop for them will be provisioned under their account. Just as the software sources produced by a contractor belong to the company that hired them, the distribution method (be it enterprise deployment certificates, installers, whatever) should belong to the customer too.
Re:This is why iPADS are not business ready by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 21:04 · Score: 0

I don't think you really thought out the Enterprise certificate. The right way to do it is to have your client get the certificate.
Re:This is why iPADS are not business ready by anerki · 2012-10-23 22:06 · Score: 1

Quote please?
We push enterprise SAP applications using Sybase Unwired Platform in combination with Afaria and others. They provide all the device mgmt you could want (remotely wiping devices, pushing updates, etc.)

--
Life is great! (as told by Lady Susan)
Re:This is why iPADS are not business ready by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 23:57 · Score: 0

Note he said "of your devices", we were talking enterprise, not installing on your customers devices. Enterprise IT doesn't generally manage customers devices... Reading R hard eh?
Re:This is why iPADS are not business ready by c_sd_m · 2012-10-24 02:16 · Score: 1

Have your clients buy Enterprise licenses?
Re:This is why iPADS are not business ready by drkstr1 · 2012-10-24 06:39 · Score: 1

Well since I got down modded on my GP post, I will reply to your comment here as well...

Have your clients buy Enterprise licenses?
We did actually consider this, and decided it wasn't the way to go. Our primary concern being that we run the risk of losing our developer license.
It would be fine if we were developing an app for a single client, which they would own the rights to on delivery. But what if we have multiple clients who want the same system? We could have each client add us as an authorized developer so we could sign the code using their certificates, but this is clearly in contradiction to to Apple's app store model, and probably would not end well for us were they to find out what we were up to (and there is a paper trail).
After weighing the risks, we decided it would be best to brave the approval process for the Volume Purchasing Program. As it turns out, it was a good decision. We got our product delivered on time, and now we can start working on an "ideal" solution.
The bottom line is that developing enterprise applications for a walled garden presents additional risk, and we are now taking active steps to eliminate that risk entirely.

--
Fanboy Status: Apache Flex, C#, Eclipse, KDE, Pirate Party, Ron Paul, Slackware, Windows 7

Web App? by R3d+M3rcury · 2012-10-23 15:46 · Score: 1, Interesting

The interesting thing mentioned in the article is that they have both a web app and an iPad app.

How impossible would it be to just have a web app? Then you can update to your hearts delight and don't have to deal with Apple. Users can easily put it on their iPads. There are even some "tricks" you can use to work better on the iPad, I believe (common gestures, etc.).

Re:Web App? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 16:38 · Score: 1

How impossible would it be to just have a web app? Then you can update to your hearts delight and don't have to deal with Apple.
Then nobody will use it. Web apps suck.
Re:Web App? by circletimessquare · 2012-10-23 17:00 · Score: 2

the app has to still work, even when there's no network connection. "always online" is not an option yet

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Re:Web App? by squiggleslash · 2012-10-24 02:44 · Score: 1

It depends on what they mean by "Web App", but it is, indeed, perfectly possible to produce an app in HTML5, for most HTML5 browsers, that's initially delivered by a web server that's 100% stored offline. Here's some information: http://www.html5rocks.com/en/features/offline
My suspicion though is that both the web app and the native app require an online connection, given the description.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:Web App? by circletimessquare · 2012-10-24 02:49 · Score: 1

it makes me sad HTML5 does not support bluetooth communication
it would make life so much easier

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it

Summary: app developer breaks rules, is denied. by whoever57 · 2012-10-23 15:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

The App Store deemed that we were forcing the user to make a purchase away from the app store in order to use the app, which is partly true.

The article does not describe any actions they take to make the above not true, so it appears that they broke Apple's rules. What can they expect?

--
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!

Re:Summary: app developer breaks rules, is denied. by Quarters · 2012-10-23 16:14 · Score: 1

Exactly. I can almost forgive them for the mistake with the word 'encryption' in the metadata. The rest of the rejections were clearly for not following the rules. Disliking the rules is one thing. Complaining because you can't talk to someone to get a waiver for those rules is something completely different. The majority of this article can be summarized as "We did X, which we know wasn't allowed and were surprised when Apple rejected our poor little app. Then in order to fix X we did Y, which we also know wasn't allowed. Yet again we were surprised when our poor little app was rejected." I'm sorry, but if you want your app to run natively on the iPad/Pod/Phone you need to make it compliant to Apple's rules. That the developer was not following the guidelines while creating this app for a paying client speaks quite a bit towards the quality of work one can expect from that team.
Re:Summary: app developer breaks rules, is denied. by Pesticidal · 2012-10-23 16:57 · Score: 2

He also broke the rules by complaining about Apple's procedures openly on the internet. I think he can expect to see his developer certificate revoked soon.
Re:Summary: app developer breaks rules, is denied. by HuguesT · 2012-10-23 17:55 · Score: 2

Yes, there is a lot of usual keywords in their rant on the web (deliver in a timely manner, etc), but really the reason Apple rejected them is clear as day, and they know it. They state that the in-app store purchase is not appropriate for their need, but it is not clear why not, or why they need users to make any purchase at all.
So in other word their whole rant is irrelevant, except to say that Apple doesn't care about corporate software in their walled garden. If you look at the content of the App store, that is absolutely obvious.They shouldn't have even started.
Re:Summary: app developer breaks rules, is denied. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 19:54 · Score: 0

I'm surprised they can program because they obviously can't read the submission guidelines.
Re:Summary: app developer breaks rules, is denied. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-24 02:13 · Score: 0

They are TL;DR
Re:Summary: app developer breaks rules, is denied. by Crudely_Indecent · 2012-10-24 07:12 · Score: 1

I had a problem with that too, except the thing people were purchasing wasn't something that could be purchased through the app store. The app required registration to load the full content, and that registration was provided when the user attended a live training event. The app has some functionality without registration, but the full content is only available to people who have attended the training.
Apple viewed this as an external purchase and rejected an app update (the update was to fix a math error, nothing else) After scheduling a conference call, never receiving that call, and resubmitting the app 5 times - it was finally approved.
I can appreciate that they want to keep their platform clean, I can also appreciate that they want to squeeze every penny of profit from the app store - but what I don't appreciate is their lack of consideration to the people who are developing these apps. Missed appointments, inconsistent application of the secret approval guidelines, and the long-long wait between submission and approval or denial - the app store is an unnecessarily hard pill to swallow.

--

"Lame" - Galaxar

Mac-exclusive by tepples · 2012-10-23 15:47 · Score: 0

But you need to buy a Mac first, not use the computer you already have. Equivalently, Xcode costs $650 and comes with a free computer.

Re:Mac-exclusive by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 16:02 · Score: 0

VMWare, yo.
Re:Mac-exclusive by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 16:24 · Score: 0

But you need to buy a Mac first, not use the computer you already have.
Just use the Mac you already have. That's what I did.
Re:Mac-exclusive by beelsebob · 2012-10-23 22:32 · Score: 1

Oh, okay then, the android development tools cost $500 then, as I need to buy a computer first before I can use them.
Re:Mac-exclusive by aaaaaaargh! · 2012-10-24 01:06 · Score: 1

The difference is that you can develop for Android on Linux, Windows, and Mac OS X, so chances that computer user already has a developer machine for Android are way higher than in case of iOS.

Re:HERE'S A NOVEL IDEA !! DO NOT PUBLISH CRAP APPS by topham · 2012-10-23 15:48 · Score: 1

This.

I've personally developed and released multiple apps, and each app has had updates shortly after release. One was a rather embarrassing oversight. I didn't blame Apple, I blamed myself. I also used their expedite service to request a quick review for the update and was granted the expedited review. The updated application was approved within 2 days using that process. Apples process is frustrating, and can be extreemly aggravating, but I have to wonder how come they didn't have an application + iPad to use for their demo/tutorial. Creating an Adhoc version, as well as a corporate signed version are easy enough under restricted circumstances. (You can't distribute to everyone that way, but you can get it up and working on multiple devices so your client can review and test and train).

Multi-thousand-dollar app by tepples · 2012-10-23 15:49 · Score: 1

It's not necessarily "crap" as much as a refusal to offer a very expensive service (as in "if you have to ask you can't afford it" expensive) through Apple's in-app payment infrastructure.

Apple banned my app by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 15:56 · Score: 0

My app is called B Book (appstore name) which stands for booty book. They made the process a nightmare, but eventually I got it into the store.

Re:Android for the first $1250 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 15:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

As far as costs of doing business goes, $1250 is a god damn bargain.

Really wish people would stop whining about $100 development certificate. It's a negligible cost in the face of the actual App development cost.

hmmm guess they didn't read the guidelines.. by mikeskup · 2012-10-23 16:03 · Score: 1

you fail to follow the rules, then you complain about the rules???? brilliant!! just like bi&^hing about a speeding ticket!!

i got like 17 apps approved(search SkupTech in app store), only had on rejected, which I knew was a possibility when i made it....(too simple of mac app, had a nice fellow from apple call me to explain... no big deal..)

--
locked out of this slashdot account for 10+ years... Im back

Re:Android for the first $1250 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 16:05 · Score: 0

It's worth the pain still at this point to hit iOS first and Android afterwards, especially to make 3X to 4X revenue on iOS.

Unless one is in an early stage startup and needs the Android revenue to afford the $1250 startup cost for iOS development ($650 Mac mini, $500 iPad, $100 certificate).

FWIW, two out of those three items can be purchased used. Or you can buy last year's iPad new from Apple. You're also ignoring the price of a decent dev machine for Android in place of the Mac mini, which will probably be at least $500, and hardware with which to test the android app, which will be at least $200. Even in a very cash-strained environment, it still makes the most sense to shell out for a Mac mini and an iPad.

Rather than buy all new hardware, I took a longer-term approach and transitioned to a MBP when my old machine gave up the ghost. I wasn't ready to start developing for iOS yet at the time, but I knew I'd want to in the near future. And I knew I didn't want to buy a Mac mini just for that purpose.

Re:Android for the first $1250 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 16:10 · Score: 0

Refurbs are your friend and half of apps could probably get away with testing only on the emulators that come with xcode, or an ipod touch. Refurb minis come through in batches every week, but sometimes they sell out fast.
Refurb mini: $569
Refurb ipod touch: $179
Developer program: $99
Total: $847
Oh, and don't forget that you won't need a whole separate PC for Android and Windows development, just a copy of Windows.

I'm not an Apple fan, but it wasn't hard to justify the expense, and I could even put it all on my credit card without going over my credit limit.

Re:Android for the first $1250 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 16:12 · Score: 0

My android dev experience was far more expensive than my iOS experience because the Android simulator is so awful that I ended up having to buy a Galaxy Tab 10.1.

Wrong iPad deployment model... by Jettamann · 2012-10-23 16:16 · Score: 1

Sounds like your targetted app client falls under the class of Enterprise.... so why not skip the app store entirely, keep 100% of the revenue and deploy directly to your verticle market customers directly using the Apple Enterprise licence model?

https://developer.apple.com/programs/ios/enterprise/

--
- No Sig for you!

Re:Wrong iPad deployment model... by drkstr1 · 2012-10-23 18:41 · Score: 2

If you actually read the terms carefully, this only authorizes you to distribute the app to internal employees. I know because we have an Enterprise license, which is pretty much entirely useless to us (as a provider of B2B services). We need to go through the standard approval process to get our app in the Volume Purchasing Program (which I imagine is what these guys in TFA actually needed).

--
Fanboy Status: Apache Flex, C#, Eclipse, KDE, Pirate Party, Ron Paul, Slackware, Windows 7
Re:Wrong iPad deployment model... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 20:57 · Score: 0

I'd assumed that you'd get the enterprise license on behalf of your client (walk them through the process, maybe charge something for admin-ing the account) rather than publish it under your own name. Is that a reasonable way to go?
Re:Wrong iPad deployment model... by c_sd_m · 2012-10-24 02:29 · Score: 1

But your clients could buy Enterprise licenses. You could help them with that as part of the sale.
Re:Wrong iPad deployment model... by drkstr1 · 2012-10-24 06:22 · Score: 2

We did actually consider this, and decided it wasn't the way to go. Our primary concern being that we run the risk of losing our developer license.
It would be fine if we were developing an app for a single client, which they would own the rights to on delivery. But what if we have multiple clients who want the same system? We could have each client add us as an authorized developer so we could sign the code using their certificates, but this is clearly in contradiction to to Apple's app store model, and probably would not end well for us were they to find out what we were up to (and there is a paper trail).
After weighing the risks, we decided it would be best to brave the approval process for the Volume Purchasing Program. As it turns out, it was a good decision.

--
Fanboy Status: Apache Flex, C#, Eclipse, KDE, Pirate Party, Ron Paul, Slackware, Windows 7
Re:Wrong iPad deployment model... by c_sd_m · 2012-10-24 06:35 · Score: 1

Glad that worked out for you. It is odd that Apple says to add contractors to the client's license for App Store distribution but not for B2B: https://developer.apple.com/support/ios/enrollment.html

Not all developers have the same problems by rworne · 2012-10-23 16:19 · Score: 5, Informative

My experience with the app store has been totally different.

While I do embedded code for a living, I wanted to learn to write iOS apps. I am by no means a really good Obj-C programmer (but I am improving). My first hobby app suddenly looked like it might be marketable and I prepped it for app store submission.

When I got my one app rejection (on my first submission) I got an electronically generated letter that was sort of vague as to the reason. I responded to it, I got a response by a human in only an hour or two explaining in simpler terms what the issue was and what they expected. I resubmitted that afternoon and in a few days it was up and on sale. There have been no rejections over any of my subsequent updates.

I also had to push out an update about 4-5 days before the iOS 6 release due to a stupid coding error that iOS 6 would no longer let me get away with. It sat in the queue until iOS 6 was released then suddenly the app went from waiting, to in review to ready for sale in a few seconds. It came out when they did a dump of all the other iOS 6 apps. I suppose if an app has a certain number of sales and decent feedback they do not spend much time on it during reviews when crunch time is upon them. This has happened more than once - on the 5.0 update and the 4.0 update too.

Releasing at other times, I usually have 5-6 day waits. My last release (approved today) took a bit more than 8 days.

I have no complaints so far in my 2+ years on the app store.

--
I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit

Re:Android for the first $1250 by jtownatpunk.net · 2012-10-23 16:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

Unless one is in an early stage startup and needs the Android revenue to afford the $1250 startup cost for iOS development ($650 Mac mini, $500 iPad, $100 certificate).

Dude, if you can't afford to invest $1250 in your startup, you can't afford to invest in your startup. The guy who rides the ice cream bike around the 'hood had a higher startup cost what with the custom cooler-bike, dry ice, ice cream, and business license.

Re:It doesn't matter if your little app gets accep by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 16:30 · Score: 0

2/3's of the apps in Apple's App Store have never been downloaded ... Less than 1% of iOS apps earn over $1000 in sales ....

Where did you get these numbers from? I'm aware that the situation with regards to app success rates is bad but is it really this bad?

Who starts with a Windows box? by SuperKendall · 2012-10-23 16:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

Unless one is in an early stage startup and needs the Android revenue to afford the $1250 startup cost for iOS development ($650 Mac mini, $500 iPad, $100 certificate).

Most people already have a Mac laptop quite capable of developing iOS apps.

That Android development is not free either by the same logic; you need SOME computer for that and in fact to make Eclipse tolerable it better have a goodly amount of RAM and a fast processor.

And you list $500 for an iPad - why? Brand new iPads start at $400, and you can get refurb or used iPad 2 units for less - never mind the new iPad mini which would serve just as well... or an iPod touch which is even less.

I would argue if you were doing any serious Android development you'd be spending a hell of a lot more for test devices. Otherwise if you aren't serious you can also ship to the Apple app store without testing on a single real device either.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re:Who starts with a Windows box? by reve_etrange · 2012-10-23 18:03 · Score: 3, Insightful

Most people
Huh?

--
.: Semper Absurda :.
Re:Who starts with a Windows box? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 18:25 · Score: 0

Show me the stats for mobile developers.
Not simply developers; *mobile* developers.
I'd wager that, in that niche, it'll be OS X or Linux first -- with Windows lagging far, far behind. Their only genuine use for Windows lies in gaming, and Windows will typically be the secondary OS when present.
Re:Who starts with a Windows box? by AmiMoJo · 2012-10-23 23:20 · Score: 1

From the linked article:

Information about operating system share is difficult to obtain, since in most of the categories below there are no reliable primary sources or methodology for its collection.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Who starts with a Windows box? by reve_etrange · 2012-10-24 12:55 · Score: 1

So your argument is that the margin of error is like 80%?

--
.: Semper Absurda :.

Shut out by the garden walls by Chairman+Goodchild · 2012-10-23 16:47 · Score: 1

When the iPhone first came out, I wrote a simple puzzle game with OpenGLES and attempted to get it approved for the App store. The process took months and was incredibly frustrating. Running the game the first time showed a demo of the high scores table. Rather than leave it empty, I populated the list with the names of great scientists that I admired.

The rejection letter said that I was is in violation of Section 3.3.12 from the iPhone SDK Agreement which states (as quoted directly from the rejection letter):

"Applications must not contain any obscene, pornographic, offensive or defamatory content or materials of any kind (text, graphics, images, photographs, etc.), or other content or materials that in Apple's reasonable judgement may be found objectionable by iPhone or iPod touch users."

Obscene? pornographic? offensive? Surely they had confused my app with someone else's. Of course it didn't take me long to realize the name that some would find 'offensive' and I was disgusted.

After I removed the name Charles Darwin from the high scores table, I was rejected again because I violated section 3.3.6 of the iPhone SDK Agreement:

"Any form of user or device data collection, or image, picture or voice capture or recording performed by the Application (collectively “Recordings”), and any form of user data, content or information uploading, syncing, or transmission performed by the Application [. . .] a reasonably conspicuous visual indicator must be displayed to the user as part of the Application to indicate that a Recording is taking place."

I couldn't even believe this when I read it. My app was totally local and didn't even open a network socket! Just who the hell was reviewing these things? I guess lawyers with no tech sense whatsoever.

I still like Apple products because they are in my opinion the best that's out there, but this experience really damaged my opinion of Apple as a company. And I certainly haven't bothered to do anymore iPhone development. I loved writing the code, but dealing with the walled garden was a truly depressing experience.

--
You shouldn't waste your time reinventing the wheel. The square ones work just fine.

Re:Shut out by the garden walls by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 17:29 · Score: 0

You may have solved yourself a lot of hastle just having an empty high score table to start with!! There's no need to populate the table with fake info as such, it looks kinda silly imo.
Re:Shut out by the garden walls by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 19:46 · Score: 0

Maybe your app just sucked that bad that they would have been embarrassed to put it in the app store, but "your app just totally sucks" wasn't one of their form letters so they sent you a random one.

Re:It doesn't matter if your little app gets accep by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 16:51 · Score: 0

It's really really hard to compete against the other fart and flashlight apps.

Re:It doesn't matter if your little app gets accep by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 16:51 · Score: 0

Wouldn't most people download their own app at least once just to see it work? Or convince a friend/relative to download the app?

Very fishy stats.... by SuperKendall · 2012-10-23 16:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

Unfortunately, 2/3's of iOS apps have never been downloaded, and less than 1% of iOS apps earn over $1000.

I highly doubt both of those figures.

I know a lot of friends (and myself) who make niche apps, apps they do not advertise and you would never have heard of. All of them have made over $1000 on the apps they make, and there are quite a few other companies making high profile apps that are obviously making a lot of money. There's no way that only ~7500 apps have made over $1k.

In fact this article makes a good case that the number of people making over $1k is more like 20%

Also simply because of review sites and pirates (!), I would actually claim it is nearly impossible that 2/3 of iOS applications have never seen a single download.

It sounds like you are trying to spread FUD - I salute your effort as it makes life easier for us app developers, but I just can't let bad information sit without challenge.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re:Very fishy stats.... by narcc · 2012-10-23 17:13 · Score: 1

I haven't offered anything that you can't easily check for yourself. It's not FUD, it's just facts.
You can disagree because of your personal experience, that's fine. Forgive me if I dismiss that in favor of more scientific data.

--
Required reading for internet skeptics
Re:Very fishy stats.... by Serious+Callers+Only · 2012-10-23 17:38 · Score: 1

Please provide links to the stats, I'm sure we'd all love to see them.
I saw some stats once for iOS sales which were made up based on a lot of dodgy assumptions and one total sales figure, they were far from what you could call 'scientific'. As far as I know Apple have not released stats in this sort of detail, if they have it'd be really interesting to see them here.
Re:Very fishy stats.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 17:41 · Score: 0

It is so scientific that it has no citations,
Re:Very fishy stats.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 17:42 · Score: 0

I haven't offered anything that you can't easily check for yourself. It's not FUD, it's just facts.
You can disagree because of your personal experience, that's fine. Forgive me if I dismiss that in favor of more scientific data.
A figure you give isn't true until somebody else gives proof that it isn't. That is an appeal to ignorance.
In spite of this, I have taken to google, as you recommended in another post. For your figure of 2/3, I found a single article, about an
estimate done by a 3rd party, available here. This is shotty, and not "scientific" -- no study is mentioned, it may just be a shot-in-the-dark estimate -- , but since this is the only source I am aware of, I'll concede that your first figure may be accurate.
For your 1% figure, I couldn't find anything to back this up. I tried multiple search terms, including: "iOS app revenue", "iOS 1% of apps","itunes top selling apps", and "itunes 1000 apps". Nada.
I love to hate on apple like everyone else. I proudly don't own a single apple device. But if you are going to hate them, hate them for real reasons, and not silly reasons based on contrived facts, and definitely don't talk down your nose to people that question your bold claims that lack citations.
Re:Very fishy stats.... by jeremyp · 2012-10-23 20:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

If you make an assertion, it is for you to provide the source to verify it. You could easily have pasted the link to the story that supports your post, but no, you had to post a lmgtfy link instead.
Well fuck you too.

--
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
Re:Very fishy stats.... by narcc · 2012-10-23 21:17 · Score: 1

In fairness, I made it an "I'm feeling lucky" so it took you right to the article -- I even picked a popular pro-Apple site (Apple Insider). The lmgtfy was because, as I stated earlier, it would have taken you less time to verify the claim than it did to ask for my source!
If it was a even a little obscure or difficult to find, I'd have offered a link. For something like this, it just seemed unnecessary.
I normally wouldn't respond to such a request here, as asking for a source is a way that trolls spread FUD -- if I quit caring or ignore a request for any number of reasons (known troll, etc.) it puts doubt in to the other readers minds (their goal, naturally). If I do provide a source, it is typically dismissed out-of-hand for dubious reasons ("That study is flawed!" without any specific criticism or "That tired old argument was debunked" without reference to the debunker.)
It's almost universally a waste of time to reply to anyone asking for a source on Slashdot.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt. See how well that worked out for me?

--
Required reading for internet skeptics
Re:Very fishy stats.... by NoMaster · 2012-10-23 21:57 · Score: 1

His source doesn't verify anything, beyond the fact that you can't trust so-called "news" websites to report even press releases accurately.
Read the original press release here, and decide for yourself if "given the fact, that they can not be found in any AppStore list and are very likely to be overseen by the search engine, these apps hardly generate any download" = "2/3's of the apps in Apple's App Store have never been downloaded"

--
What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
Re:Very fishy stats.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 23:27 · Score: 2, Informative

It's almost universally a waste of time to reply to anyone asking for a source on Slashdot.
No, it's not. You're not posting an established fact, common knowledge, etc. You're posting statistics, which in many cases on this site are sourced form the poster's posterior region. Your apparent inability to back up your claims with a source indicate you found yours in the same place.
So just because you obviously need a lesson in how things work, I looked. The first match I found refutes your claims, as of the 12th of last month this source claims they have a 90% download rate.. monthly. http://techcrunch.com/2012/09/12/ios-app-store-boasts-700k-apps-90-downloaded-every-month/
In fact, every single place I found your claims posted ALL link back to the same report, which is a claim made by a new company trying to drum up business for it's web site. There is no way to actually use their tool to check this statistic... you can get some interesting information about particular apps but nowhere is there a section that just tells you how many 0 download apps there are. So I'm calling shenanigans, I'm saying these folks released a sensational statement in order to attract attention.
So in light of the fact that I have supplied an actual citation from a reputable source, and you have not, put up or shut up.
Re:Very fishy stats.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 23:28 · Score: 0

$1000 is nothing, you cannot live on that unless you reside in a 3rd world cave and farm your own food.
Re:Very fishy stats.... by strikethree · 2012-10-25 18:08 · Score: 1

Why is the standard set at $1k? $1k is not even a single paycheck. For a professional, it is not even a quarter of a single paycheck. I can not even be bothered to wipe my own butt for a one time payout of $1k.
Seriously though, unless I were doing it for fun, I would not consider writing an app for less than $10k. If I can write it and polish it in less than 2 months, it is common garbage that any semi-literate moron could have written. My time is worth more than that.

--
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Re:Very fishy stats.... by SuperKendall · 2012-10-25 19:35 · Score: 1

I don't know but I know a number of people that are using apps as side income, and each of them has in fact earned way more than $1k...
It's not like it's a one-time payout, once you have an application in the store you need merely to keep it up to date and you can have some traction if the app is good.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re:Android for the first $1250 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 16:58 · Score: 0

>> Unless one is in an early stage startup and needs the Android revenue to afford the $1250 startup cost for iOS development ($650 Mac mini, $500 iPad, $100 certificate).

A great way to weed out the idiots. If you can't afford that how exactly are you going to afford to eat for the first 2 years while your business doesn't make money?

Re:It doesn't matter if your little app gets accep by tooyoung · 2012-10-23 17:06 · Score: 1

You've made this comment twice now on this story (once receiving an up-mod), yet you've failed to provide a source. The following source states that there are 700,000 apps in the App Store. By you're numbers, that would mean that only 7,000 apps have ever broken the $1,000 mark. Now, I can only offer anecdotal evidence , but apparently I know many cream of the crop app developers.

Eclipse and Linux are damn expensive then by SuperKendall · 2012-10-23 17:11 · Score: 1, Insightful

But you need to buy a Mac first, not use the computer you already have.

I salute you as being the only person on the planet born with a PC attached to your ass.

The rest of us have to buy SOME computer, no matter what program we wish to run.

Long ago most technical folk switched to buying Mac laptops, so most of them can in fact use the computer they already have...

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re:Eclipse and Linux are damn expensive then by aaaaaaargh! · 2012-10-23 21:40 · Score: 1

Long ago most technical folk switched to buying Mac laptops, so most of them can in fact use the computer they already have...
You keep repeating this like a mantra over and over, but that doesn't make it true. Recent Mac laptops are in fact not very desirable to people who know something about technology and want to do daily work with them for a variety of reasons such as too high price, too slow, not sufficiently upgradeable, problems with battery replacement and no spare battery possible, glossy screen (a big No No), and pretty bad keyboards.
You're confusing Mac developers with "tech folk" in general, but the two groups only overlap to a very small degree.
Re:Eclipse and Linux are damn expensive then by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-24 01:35 · Score: 0

Most devs concerned about performance use ASUS.
Rich ones use Falcon Northwest.
Just try to find a Macbook Pro with 32GB ram.
Re:Eclipse and Linux are damn expensive then by c_sd_m · 2012-10-24 02:14 · Score: 1

You can get an anti-glare screen on a 15" MacBook Pro. My 2 year old Mac hasn't slowed down though I did drop extra RAM in for running Photoshop and Adobe Flash Builder (which took all of 10 minutes, mostly to get the little screws out). My previous windows machine at 2 years old was nearly unusable. If you want to upgrade batteries, RAM, HDs, just buy a non-retina MacBook. If you want a retina screen, there are sacrifices to be made with current technology but Mac is your only option.
Re:Eclipse and Linux are damn expensive then by tepples · 2012-10-24 02:22 · Score: 1

Long ago most technical folk switched to buying Mac laptops
Would you please cite published evidence to support this claim?
Re:Eclipse and Linux are damn expensive then by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-24 02:23 · Score: 0

OMG kids, look, it's SuperKendall! One of slashdot's older apple/mac fanboi! Here we see him in his natural habitat, wildly lashing out at anything he views as a threat to his own personal reality distortion field, formed over many years of apple products use. Watch as he becomes frustrated, wondering why his vitriolic nature doesn't make more friends. His posturing will eventually cause his real life posture to adjust, possibly causing spina bifida! If you want kids, you can even feed him one of the apple treats you purchased at the start of this tour! Oh, we know they're just shiny lil bits of aluminum and plastic with an apple logo stamped on them, but he doesn't seem to mind!
Re:Eclipse and Linux are damn expensive then by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-24 02:37 · Score: 0

>glossy screen
That's a good thing, actually.
And yes. People who want both power management that works and unix on a laptop buy macs. Linux is great for many things, but for a laptop, it's pretty shit. Does the nvidia driver still keep it from sleeping?
Re:Eclipse and Linux are damn expensive then by SuperKendall · 2012-10-24 06:01 · Score: 1

Recent Mac laptops are in fact not very desirable to people who know something about technology
They are for anyone who likes UNIX, apart from a small contingent of people that run Linux on laptops.
But then they would not be developing for the iPhone anyway...
So there's say 10% of technical people who would at all be interested in iOS development without mac laptops... sorry if you were not one of them, but then you should have through through your purchase better. A mac can run every OS without hassle, any other laptop in theory can't run OSX...
Though any qualified technical user can just go hackintosh so really even that argument is a poor one to make.
Basically if you have a computer already you can do iOS development, by some means. It's just easiest with a mac.
I'll let you have the last response in this pointless thread.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Re:Eclipse and Linux are damn expensive then by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-24 09:08 · Score: 0

"Just try to find a Macbook Pro with 32GB ram"
Just try to find a Falcon Northwest with a 2880x1800 display. Okay, cheap shot. How about the 1920x1200 of the old 17" MBP? Nope, not that either, they only offer 1920x1080 - pretty sad these days on a supposedly high-end laptop.
And is that 32GB RM 1600MHz DDR3L? Oh, wait, no - it's only 1300MHz DDR3.
But at least it's cheaper than the MBP, right? I'll just let you guess what the answer to that one is!

how to upload to own device? by Chirs · 2012-10-23 17:12 · Score: 4, Informative

Last time I looked I was unable to find a way to upload an app that I wrote to my mom's iPhone without a developer license (or jailbreaking the phone, which wasn't an option since it was a work phone).

Re:how to upload to own device? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-24 01:01 · Score: 0

It's easy. You add the device ID to your provisioning profile in the dev site and then install that profile on the device along with the app from within Xcode or iTunes. Viola, done. RTFM. Heaven forbid you actually READ before you attempt to do something.

Re:It doesn't matter if your little app gets accep by narcc · 2012-10-23 17:15 · Score: 0

I made this post first, figured that it would get ignored, and restated the point in a discussion where it was relevant. I don't like it either, but it happens sometimes.

A quick google search can confirm the figures I offered.

--
Required reading for internet skeptics

...stranglehold of Apple's protocol machine by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 17:19 · Score: 0

It just works.

Because they think it is the path to money by Sycraft-fu · 2012-10-23 17:21 · Score: 1

If an app hits big on the app store, you can make a ton of money. iPhone users have the well earned reputation of being a spendy bunch. The reason Rovio are billionaires is because of the app store, because people decided they liked Angry Birds on it.

Combine that with the fact that Apple is generally very hip and trendy now. They are a fashion company, as much as a consumer electronics company. The in thing is to own and be seen with the newest Apple toy.

So tons of people rush in. They believe it is the way to make money. For a few of them, that ends up being right.

Re:Because they think it is the path to money by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 17:53 · Score: 0

No, "The reason Rovio are billionaires is because" they're one of the 1% who actually code decent games. Whether you like Angry Birds or not you cannot deny that for whatever reason, it's a hit. I have absolutely no idea how much they're making off advertising on the free version but I'd stake my life on it being on par if not more, than the paid version.
Now, probably because despite the profits some bean counter is sitting yelling at them "MOAR! MOAR!", they're trying out the Zynga method of monetisation, powerups you have to buy - but to their credit, unlike Zynga they haven't made the game impossible without them.

Re:It doesn't matter if your little app gets accep by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 17:22 · Score: 0

My brother is NOT a programmer, however he is good at design.

He has two little apps for children on the App Store which earn him $100-$150 per month. The first app took him about 50 hours, the second was much quicker due to his increased familiarity with the dev software.

A waste of time? If you're earning 6 figures up, perhaps. But he enjoyed writing the apps, and his kids enjoy playing them. The money is not big but it's a nice little bonus every month. It's lucky he doesn't read slashdot, or he would have probably never tried.

I would be astonished if he really was in the top 1% of app developers - a citation for those statistics would be nice.

Re:It doesn't matter if your little app gets accep by 1u3hr · 2012-10-23 17:30 · Score: 1

A quick google search can confirm the figures I offered.

So why don't you do that and cite your source?

Maybe I've been on Wikipedia too long. There, I'd just revert such a statement that appeared, repeatedly (twice now) in an article with no source.

Re:It doesn't matter if your little app gets accep by NoMaster · 2012-10-23 17:35 · Score: 1

Think about that.

I thought about that, and came to the conclusion it sounded like BS.

So I googled around, and the closest I could come up with is a recent press release from a new advertising metrics / mobile analytics startup that is - surprise, surprise! - pushing their own AppStore analysis tool.

And that report doesn't say "never been downloaded" at all - it says (to paraphrase their press release) that only 1/3 of the apps hold a rank in the top 300 of their category (43 categories), and the other 2/3 don't rank "any visible position at all" (i.e. they're not in the top 300), and surmise from that figure that "these apps hardly generate any downloads".

Bit of a jump from that to your claim of "never been downloaded", isn't it?

I wont give the marketing scum's name or website - if anyone wants to find the original details they can google for themselves, follow the trail back to the source, and read the original press release.

--
What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?

Mod parent up by immaterial · 2012-10-23 17:46 · Score: 4, Informative

AC is right on about the enterprise distribution system. No Apple App Store involved.

Re:It doesn't matter if your little app gets accep by NoMaster · 2012-10-23 17:54 · Score: 1

In light of this comment, I'll make the following offer:

If narcc will cite his source(s), I'll follow up with the source I used for my comment above within 24 hours.

I suspect they're substantially the same, except that his source is another tech blog / news site that misrepresents the original press release.

--
What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?

ok, ok! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 18:06 · Score: 2, Funny

I'll get off your lawn man!

One Company's Story by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 18:18 · Score: 0

[Posting this AC to avoid Apple Backlash]

I am the Director of Development for a small engineering firm. A year or so ago, we wanted to publish a custom app that targeted high-end engineering needs in the Radio Frequency (RF) design community. We signed up for the Apple Enterprise version (so we could publish our own apps to our customers) for something like $400 and submitted our company to the painfully difficult App Store approval process. I managed or attempted to manage the process, which ultimately failed.

It turns out that after all the prep work, intrusive requests for information, delays and emails with Apple, we had our application to become an Enterprise Developer rejected because our Dunn & Bradstreet (D&B**) official business address did not match our actual formal business address per our incorporation documents. Admittedly, this is a discrepancy, but it is a _trivial discrepancy_. Apparently, D&B changed our address at one point for reasons unknown, confounding our formal corporate address with the president's home address. D&B never fixed this error despite the numerous times we attempted to contact them through their fucked up process to remedy an error _they_ made. D&B simply ignored their process and to this day have never even acknowledged that their records are in error.

Despite our company's outstanding 20-year credit history, the fact that we are a multimillion dollar C-corp and the fact that we (finally, after begging) got to talk to someone at Apple so we could offer them any sort of other proof they needed, we were rejected. The Apple guy I talked to sounded like a guy reading from a script; he had no ability to use common sense to adjust the process or view the problem we had and attempt a resolution. There was no further court of appeals. He just repeated over and over that we had to "fix things with D&B" before our app could be further considered. We subsequently learned that our $400 app fee was non-refundable, just to add insult to injury.

After that phone call with Apple, I got on the phone with the president and we made a corporate decision to never develop anything for or through Apple. We are targeting Android devices only now and more than a year later, do not regret our decision.

** Details on D&B for the uninitiated:

- D&B operates just like the personal credit rating agencies we all despise. That is, they don't work for the companies like ours, they work for the banks loaning money to the companies. Companies like mine are not the customer, companies like mine are the product sold to their customers, the banks.

- They have no telephone numbers to contact them and their "objection process" is about as useless and swift-moving as trying to get an error cleaned up on a personal credit report, only harder and not aided by consumer credit protection laws.

Re:One Company's Story by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 22:57 · Score: 0

If you file suit for willful misconduct and tortious interference, and whatever other civil charges you can levy in your jurisdiction, they will fix your address almost immediately.
I had the same problem with my corp, and it was resolved within hours of them being served the papers.
Just to add insult to injury, I refused to drop the suit, and was able to recover a tidy jury sum + attorney costs for the 10 months they refused to acquiesce prior to the suit, and all of the nightmares it caused me with my creditors.
Re:One Company's Story by BitZtream · 2012-10-24 03:47 · Score: 1

I was about to go over all the reasons why you are at fault, but when you showed that you don't even really understand your DUNS number, I quit. Your credit rating is irrelevant. Its main purpose is verifying you are who you claim to be and have the basic ability to keep your information accurate. Apple is hardly the only company who uses the DUNS number this way.
You got rejected because you don't have your house or your development skills in order.
If you don't ever plan to develop anything for Apple, why are you so concerned with backlash.
You make it obvious that you're not being truthful on multiple levels.

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager

Re:Android for the first $1250 by Fallingcow · 2012-10-23 18:18 · Score: 4, Interesting

Really wish people would stop whining about $100 development certificate. It's a negligible cost in the face of the actual App development cost.

I'd bet the nicer docs and generally better API save way more than $100 in developer time anyway.

Re:Correction: most technical people. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 18:29 · Score: 0

Most technical users have mac laptops.

[citation needed]

I provided external facts, you provided nothing. by SuperKendall · 2012-10-23 18:29 · Score: 2

I haven't offered anything that you can't easily check for yourself. It's not FUD, it's just facts.

I have checked; your argument is FUD without any facts.

That is why I provided a link to what I feel is a far more reasonable estimate, that is based on real data instead of your guesses and repetition of a "fact" you can't back up with any real data.

So far I am the only one to provide a link to verifiable information; you just claim I should "use Google" when I have and it simply disproves what you have to say.

If you have an argument to make you need to provide what you feel is proof of it. Otherwise I consider you debunked.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Why is this news by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 18:45 · Score: 0

Why is this even worth slashdot news. WE have SEEN so many similar stories - and most of the Geek world have no sympathies for people who risk the vagaries of the Apple world (not to mention their lack of concern about Apple's appalling ethical behaviours these days)

Lets just put these stories out to pasture. People Deal with Apple - they may get burnt at Apples whim - its OLD News

Re:Correction: most technical people. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 18:53 · Score: 0

Huh?

Already provided by SuperKendall · 2012-10-23 18:58 · Score: 1

As I stated, anyone who goes to technical conferences already understands the accuracy of this statement.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re:Already provided by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 20:51 · Score: 0

I don't mean to imply anything by this question so please don't infer anything, but is there good reason to believe that those who go to technical conferences are representative of technical users as a whole?
Also I'm pretty sure that's only true for technical conferences in the US (and maybe select other locations), though I do agree it is true in the US (at least much of it).
Re:Already provided by aaaaaaargh! · 2012-10-23 21:24 · Score: 1

You're still wrong -- it's selective apprehension, because Macs are quite visible. Just about on any conference except a Mac developer conference most people will have a run off the mill laptop.
Among the tech savvy, Thinkpads are also quite popular, but the same caveat as above applies, of course.
Re:Already provided by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 23:04 · Score: 0

As I stated, any True Scotsman already understands the accuracy of this statement.
FTFY
Re:Already provided by drerwk · 2012-10-24 03:00 · Score: 1

JPL is bringing you the future today.
http://www.bazingajournal.com/2012/08/jpl-curiosity-crew-with-their-macbooks.html

The Bigger Picture by SuperKendall · 2012-10-23 19:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

The entire Apple ecosystem is way overpriced, from their consumer products to their stock, as well as all the little "apps" that run on those things.

Get out of the cabin much? I guess not when you are claiming apps that range generally in price for $1 to $5 are "way overpriced".

I would call you gramps but you have that really high UID...

I resent the idea that I'm supposed to waste so much of my time to fiddle with some little pocket device encumbered with a thousand patents to text and email people who don't have the time to communicate in real life

Only fools live to suit the devices they own.

I do none of that, instead my device is there to serve as *I* wish, providing data on demand. How much poorer a life when you do not have that ability on tap constantly.

You need to look at the big picture of what you're developing apps for. Someday people will realize and learn to work with the inherent limitations of interfacing with a little piece-of-junk device that fits in your pocket,

Funny you should mention the big picture; I have already seen it. It's a world where people find the small devices rock-solid compared to the "fiddly" world of PC's they came from. That's what you fail to understand, for non-technical users the desktop is the thing that is limiting and fiddly, the pocket devices the thing they turn to when the just want to do something without fuss and have vastly greater ability to use software to amplify human ability.

It is why I had been looking for a way to switch into mobile development full time since the early smart phone days, and jumped into it full time with the release of the iOS SDK. You don't have to be a genius to see which way the world will go, you just have to stop and consider what most people will probably do.

That is a truth that lives outside of brand; even if iOS faltered Android of WP8 would simply take over the same role. The PC is not a thing most people would want to use, tablets and mobile smartphones are.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re:The Bigger Picture by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-24 10:06 · Score: 0

That people at large see whatever device as useful for instance does not mean that device in question is such (useful in our case here). This goes even so far that majority of humans is extremely confused as to what they really want. Other than that you are correct - there is(still) money in mobile app market - enjoy the ride as it will not last forever.

Re:Correction: most technical people. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 19:27 · Score: 0

> Most technical users have mac laptops. Anyone who has attended a technical conference for pretty much anything (including Windows programmers!) understands the reality of this.

Nonsense. Maybe in some parts of the US (or even all of the US, I don't kow), but globally apple laptops practically don't figure. A statistical insignificance. I havent seen a Mac for months, and I work in a IT multinational with 40 thousand employees.

Anyway, how are you going to admin your AD from that Mac? And how are the domain admins going to apply GPs? Enterprises don't like 'em.

Don't fall for the reality distortion field.

[1] I'm not saying they're not nice, they just aren't common.

Re:It doesn't matter if your little app gets accep by narcc · 2012-10-23 19:45 · Score: 1

Already done in another comment.

Press crtl+f and type my username in the little search box. You can do that, right?

Why is using a search engine so difficult for some people?

--
Required reading for internet skeptics

Re:Android for the first $1250 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 19:57 · Score: 1

Congratulations, you don't want a smartphone. On the grand scale of things, you're background noise. You're not even a fucking edge case - and judging by how you worded your post, you know it. So why did you even post this in the first place?

Re:Android for the first $1250 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 20:51 · Score: 0

The $1250 startup cost is a valid complaint when the other platform has no similar barriers.

beside switching to android... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 21:07 · Score: 0

would be to make opening an enterprise account on your website free and then selling something akin to a client access license through the app store.

Don't like it, don't try to sell "enterprise" software on a device aimed at the consumer market.

Re:Android for the first $1250 by aaaaaaargh! · 2012-10-23 21:13 · Score: 2

What happened to the Shareware idea?

Not everybody who sells applications wants to make buckloads of money, there used to be hobbyists like me who invest their spare time to bring affordable, high-quality applications to people. To many of us, the shareware fee was not a means to get rich, but needed as a small incentive (and justification, e.g. to the wife...) to keep maintaining and developing the app. My main shareware app for OS X is better than most of the competition and available for $15 since the past decade -- however, you won't find it in the App store. Many thousands of great applications and a whole culture is dying with the App stores and people don't even realize how much they are loosing in terms of cash, as they are being ripped off by developers who only want fast cash and certainly aren't interested in long-term maintenance or a sustainable business model.

Moreover, when you're adding up costs, you should add up all the costs: The $650 Mac Mini and $500 will only be usable with the latest OS for about 5 years as reasonable developer machines and the certificates are needed every year. So the minimum cost for iOS development is USD 330 per year, which is 27.5$ a month. That's certainly not much for a real startup, but way too much for many shareware authors.

Add to this the hassle of going through review processes and requirements -- as if bundling, documenting, packaging and distribution weren't already enough of a pain in the ass without an app store --, the need for rewriting your app on every platform because companies more or less force you to use their proprietary toolchains, and forthcoming costs for app stores on other platforms, plus the risk of being sued by a patent troll at any time. Suddenly creating nice apps in your spare time or as a half-time job looks more like a pain than the fun it used to be. And don't be surprised if you're getting ripped off by people who want some fast return for their investment.

Re:I provided external facts, you provided nothing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 21:28 · Score: 0

Guess why Apple doesn't publish the data...

Re:Android for the first $1250 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 21:34 · Score: 0

slashdot never woudda happened if $1250 were the
cost of putting up a web site.

Re:Android for the first $1250 by wildsurf · 2012-10-23 21:36 · Score: 2

What happened to the Shareware idea?

Why not release a Free app, with an embedded "Donate" button that triggers an in-app-purchase? Voila, Shareware.

--
Weeks of coding saves hours of planning.

Re:It doesn't matter if your little app gets accep by NoMaster · 2012-10-23 21:40 · Score: 1

I just got home from the office. You do know that the world has different time zones, right? Why is the fact that the earth revolves around the sun so difficult for some people?

I found your attempt at snark and - ah, just as I guessed, a blog / "news" site post that misrepresents the content of the Adeven press release. I'll leave it to you to use your superior Google skills to find the original source (hint: try searching for the quotes I used in my original comment).

Everyone else, you can all read it here.

narcc, when you eventually find it, you might notice it doesn't back up your claim that "2/3's of iOS apps have never been downloaded" at all.

Care to admit you were either misled, trolling, or deliberately lying?

--
What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?

made over $1000 by Tim+Ward · 2012-10-23 22:17 · Score: 1

About a day and a half's income for a decent programmer. I hope it didn't take them any longer than that to write the app (including, of course, share of setup costs and training time.)

Re:made over $1000 by stewbee · 2012-10-24 00:22 · Score: 1

For some, the journey isn't always about the final destination, rather it is the journey itself that is the reward.

Enough philosophical crap. While I have not published any apps for android or iOS, I have learned how to start programming for android for fun. If I actually had time to finish some of the ideas that I had, I most certainly would publish them. I would not expect to make a lot of money on it. I certainly would not expect to replace my current income with app development, since as you so eloquently put, the pay off is only a few days of salary. Part of the reason for publishing it however would be just to learn the process and the sense of accomplishment.

Anecdotal story time. Our company recently interviewed a guy who did some amazing professional level FPGA development on his own time. He went so far as to pay for a double sided board that he routed himself, had DDR3 ram, various video codecs, and an FPGA which had a BGA for a footprint. This are pretty complicated things to do and not necessarily cheap to fab, let alone as a hobby when you are paying for it yourself. While he might think about marketing this product in the future, he mostly did it because he thought it would be cool. Sure enough when he showed us the final product, it was most certainly cool. I would tell you who this is, since he has a you tube channel, but we are still trying to hire him.

Re:Android for the first $1250 by beelsebob · 2012-10-23 22:19 · Score: 2

Whatever you're selling, it's way too expensive if you can throw $1250 out the window as the "cost of doing business" as some freelancer developing an "app" that is supposed to run on some fiddly little device. The entire Apple ecosystem is way overpriced, from their consumer products to their stock, as well as all the little "apps" that run on those things. My pocketbook is staying firmly closed when it comes to anything Apple.

Haha, you're on the wrong planet. Businesses regularly through way more than that away as a cost of doing business. Need an artist to make a 3D model? Better pay $2000 for 3DS Max for a year then. Need an artist to draw your UI? Better pay $700 for a photoshop license then. Need a computer to do your development on? Better pay $500 then. Want a desk to work on and a chair to sit on? $200. In the grand scheme of things, $1250 is a pittance to a business, especially when $650 of that is for a computer, which they'd have to buy anyway.

Re:Android for the first $1250 by beelsebob · 2012-10-23 22:23 · Score: 2

The other platform has roughly the same barriers –you need to spend $500 on a computer, you need to spend $200 on a device to test on.

Re:Android for the first $1250 by nogginthenog · 2012-10-23 22:29 · Score: 1

Chances are (being a programmer and all) you already own a computer capable of running Eclipse so the $500 is not needed.

Re:Android for the first $1250 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 22:43 · Score: 0

It's worth the pain still at this point to hit iOS first and Android afterwards, especially to make 3X to 4X revenue on iOS.

Unless one is in an early stage startup and needs the Android revenue to afford the $1250 startup cost for iOS development ($650 Mac mini, $500 iPad, $100 certificate).

Why did this get flamebait? He makes a good point. If you're trying to get into App development in your spare time, or as a student, you can probably dig up a few bucks to get on the Google market, but how many people really have a spare $1250 laying around to take a chance with?

Devs make more money on the iStore because consumers feel safer with the apps on that market, and it's because the acceptance process is so tough. Sure, it could be ran better, and be more consistent, but consumers don't care how hard it is for you to publish... once you're there, they will buy it.
Contrast that to the Google store, where people are afraid to download apps, even the free ones, because there's little or no quality control. They have a "featured developer" tag, but that's a fucking joke. Apps aren't subjected to review, developers don't have to justify the permission requests they make, most of the customer comments are pure astroturf, and the second you hammer down one rogue Dev he just makes another account.

Re:Android for the first $1250 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 22:59 · Score: 0

Dude, if you can't afford to invest $1250 in your startup, you can't afford to invest in your startup.

On Android, I don't NEED a startup. I don't get paid, I do this as a hobby in between school and a full time job, and am hoping to eventually make a living at it. Android gives me that opportunity, the iPlatform does not.

Re:Android for the first $1250 by beelsebob · 2012-10-23 23:00 · Score: 3, Informative

Decent chance (being a programmer and all) you'll already own a Mac capable of running Xcode, so the $650 is not needed.

Re:Android for the first $1250 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 23:02 · Score: 0

The argument is that for the other platform you can use pretty much any desktop/laptop to develop on, you do not need to buy a "brand x approved" model. Bear in mind there is no reason for Apple not to allow you to develop for iOS under Windows or Linux other than they don't want you to have that option.

Re:Android for the first $1250 by AmiMoJo · 2012-10-23 23:15 · Score: 1

Depends if you plan to make that cost back with your app. If you are producing a free app suddenly it doesn't look so good.

There is a good reason why there are more good free apps (free as in really free, not ad-laden crap) and open source software on Android.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC

Re:Android for the first $1250 by beelsebob · 2012-10-23 23:23 · Score: 2

Sure there's a reason... The reason is that they've developed a *huge* software suite for doing the development on, and would have to spend millions porting it. Add to that that the iOS simulator is litterally directly calling the same OS X APIs for an awful lot of the calls in iOS, and you're talking about porting half of OS X to windows and linux!

obvious by qurk · 2012-10-23 23:37 · Score: 1

How about, Apple is a dickhead company that steals (in the name of open source) other people work and never credits it, while maintaining their highly valuable social position? Fuck Apple and if you buy any of their products you are a bigger dumbass than they are.

Re:obvious by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-24 01:41 · Score: 0

How about.. qurk is the idiot that has no basis for making any judgements about open source, credit, and Apple and should step away from the keyboard and contemplate why qurk's life is messed up to the point where basic comprehension is a challenge.

Re:Android for the first $1250 by drinkypoo · 2012-10-24 00:17 · Score: 1

The guy who rides the ice cream bike around the 'hood had a higher startup cost what with the custom cooler-bike, dry ice, ice cream, and business license.

The custom cooler-bike is made out of cast off used bikes and electrical conduit, and is welded together in a back alley by a guy named "Paco", who does an amazing job considering the flea market, 1960s technology he's working with. The cooler came from a yard sale, too. Dry ice is cheap. And business license? jejejeje

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

Re:Android for the first $1250 by NJRoadfan · 2012-10-24 00:30 · Score: 1

Add to that that the iOS simulator is litterally directly calling the same OS X APIs for an awful lot of the calls in iOS, and you're talking about porting half of OS X to windows and linux!

Apple did port most of the Cocoa libraries to Windows in order to run Safari and iTunes. Years ago Apple planned on releasing Yellowbox for Windows as a standalone run time. So it is certainly possible.

Flame bait? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-24 00:32 · Score: 0

Unless you're doing something totally off the wall; if you follow Apples guidelines, you won't get a rejection. Hell, I've released 4 apps, none of them ever rejected other than forgetting to submit images of IAP items or forgetting to activate gamecenter. Those type of mistakes; if fixed very soon after the rejecting, they will get accepted within hours or even minutes.

The shortest time waiting was 5 days, right before the IOS 6 release. All other releases and updated, about 7 days each.

I think part of the problem is, people are using 3rd party frameworks to create their stuff. If they do something stupid, you get caught up in that. Native x-code/obj-c all the way, and you really shouldn't be having these problems.

Re:Android for the first $1250 by aaaaaaargh! · 2012-10-24 00:59 · Score: 1

Devs make more money on the iStore because consumers feel safer with the apps on that market, and it's because the acceptance process is so tough.

I doubt that's the reason. I don't know about iOS, but I've been a hobbyist shareware developer for Mac OS for about 15 years now, and my experience is that Apple customers generally are more willing to pay for software and on average have more money to spend than users of other platforms. That has always been the case, and it's not very surprising either since Apple products have always been a bit more pricey than others in the first place and are essentially dispensible first-world luxury goods.

Re:Android for the first $1250 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-24 01:13 · Score: 0

Developer time is "free" if you're a one-man shop. $100 buys a helluva lot of pizzas.

Re:Android for the first $1250 by BasilBrush · 2012-10-24 01:22 · Score: 1

I don't know about the making of a custom bike from scrap parts. But dry ice certainly isn't cheap.

Red herring. by sapevo · 2012-10-24 01:39 · Score: 1

I have over 20 apps in the App Store and I have never felt that the review process is oppressive. It may be a tiny bit frustrating. But they do need to check the apps for abusive features and to ensure good design quality. What sucks is the App Store user review mechanism, which is totally inferior to what's on Amazon, Newegg or 100's of other websites, and the search mechanism.

the windows app store lets apps have the shareware by Joe_Dragon · 2012-10-24 01:51 · Score: 1

the windows app store lets apps have the shareware like system where they can have free and payed stuff that you can unlock in the same app.

Re:Android for the first $1250 by c_sd_m · 2012-10-24 02:04 · Score: 1

So true. I'd rather get a computer or docs for my costs than paying MS $700 because click-once sucks and VS Express only does click-once installs.

Re:Android for the first $1250 by c_sd_m · 2012-10-24 02:06 · Score: 1

Please don't develop apps without test devices. And on Android you'll probably need a few. You may happen to already have an Android phone but others happen to already have a Mac.

Re:Android for the first $1250 by c_sd_m · 2012-10-24 02:08 · Score: 1

The iOS simulator is much faster than the Android emulator, because the iOS SDK is implemented for both iOS devices and OS X. It would be much more difficult to implement the iOS SDK on Windows or Linux where the OS doesn't share 80% of the same APIs.

Re:Android for the first $1250 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-24 02:11 · Score: 0

From the sound of things, you're the worst kind of "shareware" developer. You've put together some app which you think is the bee's knees (and, hell, maybe it is on its native platform.) You've realized that there's money to be made on other platforms (everyone knows Apple customers have shit-tons of cash to spend!) and so you figure you'll hack away at your app until it spits out a binary that actually runs, and then rake in the cash one Paypal payment at a time.

Look, your app may be great on its native platform, but I assure you, it's a steaming pile of buggy crap once you've ported it. It would be like an author translating his book into French using Google Translate.

Think iTunes for Windows (or Office for Mac.) Any app developed by people that don't actually use the app is garbage.

Please, just don't. Stay on your home turf, keep developing the app that you actually use, and don't try to serve a population you don't understand.

Re:Android for the first $1250 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-24 02:17 · Score: 0

Seriously? For most startups, $1250 can be spent just getting a business plan together. Holy GD fuck, you geeks and no fucking clue how the real world outside your bubble works.

Re:Android for the first $1250 by Quiet_Desperation · 2012-10-24 02:20 · Score: 1

Wow. When did Ted Kaczynski escape from prison?

Time machine by tepples · 2012-10-24 02:21 · Score: 1

Where did you get the time machine so that you could talk your past self out of buying a PC that came with Windows and out of building a PC?

Mac inside Mac as opposed to Mac inside PC by tepples · 2012-10-24 02:23 · Score: 1

I was under the impression that Mac OS X lawfully ran only in VMware for Mac OS X, not VMware for Windows.

Re:It doesn't matter if your little app gets accep by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-24 02:25 · Score: 0

>Why is using a search engine so difficult for some people?

It's not. Just know, I think forum posts without backup are bullshit. The onus is on the poster to persuade me it isn't bullshit.

If you are happy with your bullshit living in a sea of bullshit, fine, but don't expect to persuade anyone.

Re:I provided external facts, you provided nothing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-24 02:53 · Score: 0

That is why I provided a link to what I feel is a far more reasonable estimate

I have an app on the store that gets 2-3 downloads per month. This company claims it has never been downloaded.

Re:It doesn't matter if your little app gets accep by tibit · 2012-10-24 02:54 · Score: 1

Well, at least he/she can reclaim some methane and claim going green and helping stave off global warming. Manure, mmm.

--
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.

Fleeing? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-24 03:14 · Score: 0

The best you can do is come up with a link for 2009 about developers "fleeing"? Why even bother putting that in there? *eyebrow raise*

Re:Android for the first $1250 by drinkypoo · 2012-10-24 03:15 · Score: 1

I don't know about the making of a custom bike from scrap parts

There's lots of info all over le internet.

But dry ice certainly isn't cheap.

A few bucks will go all day. You can make enough collecting cardboard and cans on that same bike, sans cooler.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

Re:Android for the first $1250 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-24 03:36 · Score: 0

decent chance 8.5% (OS X market share)

versus

decent chance approx. 99% (OSX+Windows+Linux market share)

Struggles of an inexperienced developer by BitZtream · 2012-10-24 03:40 · Score: 1

I work at a company with 2 developers who publish to the app store, one other person and myself.

Between the company I work for and my personal account, I have 14 apps on the app store with my name on them in one way or another.

I have never even had to explain something to Apple before they would allow my apps through.

The other developer I work with has never had an app go through without being rejected either by myself (when I was in charge of the company account) or Apple (after I got sick of explaining that Apple would reject her apps to her and my boss, and having to argue over the 'cant you just submit it and see?!' mentality they have).

Its not even a little bit hard, its a matter of knowing what you are doing. Every rejection I've EVER SEEN either in my company or out has been obvious to me from the start. The closest to 'unfair' was an app the used the word Beta in its name, but as I told the other developer, in the submission notes they should explain the usage of the word Beta in the context of the app, its a financial term, and explaining it would avoid the up front rejection that you get when the reviewer takes its initial quick glance and throws it out for using a word that isn't allowed. The App Store guidelines and docs tell you clearly to do this if you are going to use something that might be confusing to the reviewers. Wasted 2 weeks of real time because the developer didn't want to spend 30 minutes reading the submission guidelines. That same developer has had the app rejected again recently for hiding things that the reviewer must review before letting the app go up.

There are well over half a million apps on the app store, they don't give a shit about you if you don't bother to read the rules and guidelines. They don't need you.

Read the docs, follow them, its not hard, it just requires you to actually RTFM and not try to sneak around them because you think you know better, you don't. If you did, you'd be talking with someone at Apple directly because you're multi-billion dollar company would have the clout to do so.

They have their rules, if you don't like it, don't develop for it. Go write android apps, that takes no talent and you'll get paid appropriately for your efforts, nothing.

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager

So stop by Rhone · 2012-10-24 03:54 · Score: 1

Seriously, if Apple is a such a bully (and it's not like that's news), stop playing with them. There are alternatives. I can't feel sympathy for any developer complaining about Apple while they're ignoring Android users.

Re:Android for the first $1250 by tlhIngan · 2012-10-24 03:58 · Score: 1

What happened to the Shareware idea?
Not everybody who sells applications wants to make buckloads of money, there used to be hobbyists like me who invest their spare time to bring affordable, high-quality applications to people. To many of us, the shareware fee was not a means to get rich, but needed as a small incentive (and justification, e.g. to the wife...) to keep maintaining and developing the app. My main shareware app for OS X is better than most of the competition and available for $15 since the past decade -- however, you won't find it in the App store. Many thousands of great applications and a whole culture is dying with the App stores and people don't even realize how much they are loosing in terms of cash, as they are being ripped off by developers who only want fast cash and certainly aren't interested in long-term maintenance or a sustainable business model.

Died out because people either didn't pay (if they got the full version), or trashed it if they got useless demoware in the end. And most shareware ended up being crippleware or just plain old demos and people just pirated the full version like everything else.

In fact, the ONLY platform in the end where shareware worked to a limited extent was MacOS, and a bit into OS X - Mac users apparently were willing to pay up for good software, even if they didn't have to.

Even the big shareware houses ended up going to the traditional software model once they became big enough (like Ambrosia Software - big indie game developer/publisher for MacOS and OS X).

Re:Android for the first $1250 by tepples · 2012-10-24 04:00 · Score: 0

Need a computer to do your development on? Better pay $500 then.

Even if you have a computer, if you want to get started with iOS application development, you have to buy another computer, specifically one manufactured by Apple.

a computer, which they'd have to buy anyway.

Not if the computer they already own is made by HP, Dell, Acer, ASUS, Toshiba, or any other manufacturer that isn't Apple.

Re:Android for the first $1250 by dubbreak · 2012-10-24 04:04 · Score: 1

Nothing is stopping you from using WiX, WiX Edit or another tool (outside of VS express) for making an installer (proper MSI file).

I can't live with the limitations of VS Express, but creating installers plays no part in that.

--
"If you are going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill

Re:Android for the first $1250 by tepples · 2012-10-24 04:05 · Score: 1

two out of those three items can be purchased used

I thought a cheap used Mac would be PowerPC and therefore unsuitable for running the iOS SDK. Have Intel Macs capable of running the iOS SDK come down in price?

Or you can buy last year's iPad new from Apple.

If I test only on last year's iPad, how do I make sure the application doesn't fail on this year's iPad?

You're also ignoring the price of a decent dev machine for Android in place of the Mac mini

Statistically, one is more likely to already own a machine suitable for Android application development than to own a Mac.

and hardware with which to test the android app, which will be at least $200

I'll grant that since iPad mini's introduction, the price difference between a Nexus 7 and an iPad has fallen.

I took a longer-term approach and transitioned to a MBP when my old machine gave up the ghost.

Did you have to re-buy Mac OS X counterparts to all your Windows applications, or did you have to buy a retail copy of Windows to run in Parallels, VMware or Boot Camp?

Re:Android for the first $1250 by tepples · 2012-10-24 04:08 · Score: 1

The guy who rides the ice cream bike around the 'hood had a higher startup cost

And where did he come up with the funds to cover his startup cost?

trouble getting into the app store? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-24 04:17 · Score: 0

There's trouble getting into the Google Play Store! Oh, false alarm...this is Apple's app store, everyone. :P

Test devices by tepples · 2012-10-24 04:26 · Score: 1

Please don't develop apps without test devices. And on Android you'll probably need a few.

I understand that, and for about the price of an iPad, I bought a Nexus 7 for $200 and a 4" device for $200.

Re:Android for the first $1250 by jtownatpunk.net · 2012-10-24 04:27 · Score: 1

He got a loan from some dude who will start cutting off fingers and toes if he doesn't make his payments on time. Talk about incentive!

Re:Android for the first $1250 by tepples · 2012-10-24 04:27 · Score: 1

Then please help me learn more about how a startup is started up in the real world.

Quality for day job apps vs. hobby apps by tepples · 2012-10-24 04:30 · Score: 1

If you're trying to get into App development in your spare time, or as a student, you can probably dig up a few bucks to get on the Google market, but how many people really have a spare $1250 laying around to take a chance with?

The argument on the other hand is a conception that applications developed by students or hobbyists tend to be of lower average quality than applications developed by professionals as their day job.

Re:Android for the first $1250 by jtownatpunk.net · 2012-10-24 04:39 · Score: 1

What are you smoking? Do you have any idea what hardware and bandwidth cost back in the day? Back in the early 90s, my internet cooperative was paying somewhere around $600/month for our 128k connection. Our terminal server cost as much as a used car. That was probably our single most valuable asset.

Debunked by SuperKendall · 2012-10-24 04:40 · Score: 1

Your source is wrong, read here.

Next time you want to make an outrageous claim, you may want to check that it at least makes some sense at all.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re:Debunked by narcc · 2012-10-24 05:31 · Score: 1

Ummm... Your link points to an anonymous post on Slashdot.

--
Required reading for internet skeptics
Re:Debunked by SuperKendall · 2012-10-24 05:56 · Score: 1

Which states an application was claimed to not be downloaded by that user, when in fact the app has been downloaded.
All you had after all was a single web page from some random company making a wild claim with no evidence.
Since you have no evidence, and I have multiple data points plus common sense... you would be wise to drop this. But go ahead and continue to look like an idiot if you like, it's the internet and you can help fill the quota.
I'll let you have the last response since you continue to ignore any evidence stating you might be wrong.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Re:Debunked by narcc · 2012-10-24 06:55 · Score: 1

So first I dont' have a source, then my source sucks, now I'm willfully ignorant because I'm ignoring an AC post on slashdot?
Okay then.
The facts are in, however, though you'll fail to acknowledge them. iOS just isn't where the money is:
If you don't want to face facts, there's nothing I can say or do to convince you. Oh, I could make an anonymous post on slashdot -- you seem to thing they're VERY credible!

--
Required reading for internet skeptics

Exactly by SuperKendall · 2012-10-24 04:43 · Score: 1

I love to hate on apple like everyone else. I proudly don't own a single apple device. But if you are going to hate them, hate them for real reasons, and not silly reasons based on contrived facts, and definitely don't talk down your nose to people that question your bold claims that lack citations.

Even though I don't agree with them, I respect people who dislike Apple and seek to avoid Apple products - as long as they are willing to provide reasoned arguments why they do so.

There is way too much of outright incorrect information being tossed around by Apple Haters seeking to discredit Apple at any cost - including their own reputation...

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re:Android for the first $1250 by Karlt1 · 2012-10-24 05:11 · Score: 1

" The $650 Mac Mini and $500 will only be usable with the latest OS for about 5 years as reasonable developer machines and the certificates are needed every year. So the minimum cost for iOS development is USD 330 per year, which is 27.5$ a month. That's certainly not much for a real startup, but way too much for many shareware authors."

$27.55 a month too much for a hobby that you enjoy?

Re:Android for the first $1250 by BitZtream · 2012-10-24 05:27 · Score: 1

Much like its much harder for FreeBSD to run Linux binaries ... except ... its not and FreeBSD actually runs SOME things faster than Linux (not trying to start a flame war here, just pointing out a few things)

API wrappers don't have to suck, especially if you can turn it into something as little as moving argument order around.

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager

Re:Android for the first $1250 by BitZtream · 2012-10-24 05:30 · Score: 1

but as a rule I buy the cheapest piece-of-junk cell phone I possibly can,

Hrm, I wonder why your reception sucks ...

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager

Re:Android for the first $1250 by syzler · 2012-10-24 05:43 · Score: 1

you're talking about porting half of OS X to windows and linux!

I would fully support Apple porting the OS X Objective-C frameworks to Windows and Linux since it would allow an iOS/OS X developer to write cross platform applications without needing to learn a second widget library or use a second language.

That is not just my two cents, I'd back up those two copper Lincolns with green Franklins if Apple considered making UIKit and AppKit cross platform.

Re:Android for the first $1250 by beelsebob · 2012-10-24 06:27 · Score: 2

Even if you have a computer, if you want to get started with iOS application development, you have to buy another computer, specifically one manufactured by Apple.

Really? I was perfectly able to continue using my existing Mac.

Re:I provided external facts, you provided nothing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-24 06:29 · Score: 0

Wow, you really are an irrational Apple fan boi. I've been an Apple fan for nearly thirty years, but even I won't defend their app scam.

Here's another fact, I released an iOS version of a game that was on Facebook that had nearly a million monthly players. Even with advertising to those players (email and in-game) and about $1k worth of advertising on Facebook, we sold less than 900 copies of the 99 cent game. There are very few iOS hits. I work with guys that have worked for more than a dozen different companies that made iOS apps. Every one of them I've heard talk about how much their app made has lost money. Most even lost money on the advertising budget alone, like I did, which does not even including the development costs. Go ahead and ignore the serious problems Apple has with their app ecosystem. They're killing off developers.

Re:Android for the first $1250 by Bogtha · 2012-10-24 06:44 · Score: 1

Unless one is in an early stage startup and needs the Android revenue to afford the $1250 startup cost for iOS development ($650 Mac mini, $500 iPad, $100 certificate).

Typical experienced iOS developer freelance rates are somewhere around 80-120USD/hr. If you're capable of developing the app yourself, you're talking about less than what you'd earn in two days (and you'd already have the equipment anyway). If you aren't capable of developing the app yourself, that $1250 is a drop in the ocean compared with what you're going to have to pay to get the app developed. Either way, $1250 is inconsequential - that kind of money is a problem for hobbyists, not startups. If a startup can't afford $1250, they can't afford the iOS developer either.

--
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha

Re:Android for the first $1250 by DocSavage64109 · 2012-10-24 06:45 · Score: 1

Developer time is "free" if you're a one-man shop. $100 buys a helluva lot of pizzas.

Yeah, like 5 or 6 pizzas.

Re:the windows app store lets apps have the sharew by DocSavage64109 · 2012-10-24 06:51 · Score: 1

the windows app store lets apps have the shareware like system where they can have free and payed stuff that you can unlock in the same app.

Apple has the same thing, as I've purchased a couple apps that do exactly that. There's even a feature to restore your purchase if a phone restore or upgrade loses the setting.

Re:Android for the first $1250 by Bogtha · 2012-10-24 06:53 · Score: 1

I thought a cheap used Mac would be PowerPC and therefore unsuitable for running the iOS SDK.

Apple stopped selling PowerPC-based Macs six years ago. Practically all cheap used Macs for sale are Intel-based.

If I test only on last year's iPad, how do I make sure the application doesn't fail on this year's iPad?

I've been writing iOS apps for four years and I don't think I've ever seen this happen once. There are occasionally issues with forwards compatibility with different iOS versions, but they are few and far between.

--
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha

Re:Android for the first $1250 by Bogtha · 2012-10-24 06:57 · Score: 1

$27.55 a month too much for a hobby that you enjoy?

More relevant: $27.55 a month for something that can earn you $80-120/hr at typical freelance rates.

--
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha

Re:Android for the first $1250 by tepples · 2012-10-24 07:02 · Score: 1

that kind of money is a problem for hobbyists

So why is it desirable to exclude hobbyists, especially hobbyists who plan to use a hobby to gather capital for a startup?

Re:Android for the first $1250 by Bogtha · 2012-10-24 07:37 · Score: 1

So why is it desirable to exclude hobbyists

Why don't you ask somebody who said that? You said something specifically about startups, and my response was directed at that. I didn't say anything about hobbyists.

especially hobbyists who plan to use a hobby to gather capital for a startup?

If you're "using a hobby to gather capital", then it's not a hobby, it's work. You're trying to shoehorn hobbyists in here because your argument about startups failed.

--
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha

Re:Android for the first $1250 by chrismcb · 2012-10-24 07:58 · Score: 1

Unless one is in an early stage startup and needs the Android revenue to afford the $1250 startup cost for iOS development ($650 Mac mini, $500 iPad, $100 certificate).

Right because they will develop their Andriod app in thin air?
If you are developing ANYTHING, it requires some money. You'll need a computer, an internet connection isn't required, but would be useful. And you'll probably want an android device to test on. None of these are free, even for Android development.

That's Apple for ya by bogie · 2012-10-24 08:25 · Score: 1

You want to play with Apple, you go by their rules and don't get to complain when things don't work out. I guarantee OS X 10.9 will be App Store only as well and Apple will give a crap if Photoshop and Office are not available for the Mac anymore. Let alone you puny developers. Remember, someone else will gladly take your place.

Does it look like Apple needs money? Apple doesn't need Adobe, Microsoft, or anyone anymore. They are like a giant self sustaining black hole that refuses to burst. And yet I do like my old Macbook and will probably purchase an Air to replace it at some point. Freaking Hypocrite. Sigh.

--
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch

Use the PC you already have by tepples · 2012-10-24 10:20 · Score: 1

True, Android application development requires an Android device. And it also requires (or, since AIDE, perhaps strongly recommends) a computer running Windows, GNU/Linux, or Mac OS X. But I was under the impression that far more people already owned a PC running Windows or GNU/Linux than already owned a Mac. And for this more common case of someone who already owns a PC running Windows or GNU/Linux and no Mac, Android development is cheaper: just $200 for a Nexus 7 (representing 7-10" devices), $200 for a Galaxy Player (representing 4" devices), and $25 for a multi-year Google Play Store certificate. I'll make the comparison more fair if you give a citation for the usage share of Mac OS X.

Sweat equity by tepples · 2012-10-24 10:26 · Score: 1

that kind of money is a problem for hobbyists

So why is it desirable to exclude hobbyists

I didn't say anything about hobbyists.

I'm somehow failing to understand.

it's not a hobby, it's work

I was trying to refer to treating the labor on one's first paid application as sweat equity.

You're trying to shoehorn hobbyists in here because your argument about startups failed.

I admit that I know next to nothing about startups, and until I know more, my arguments will continue to fail. So let's fix my lack of knowledge: where should one find the capital to start a software business?

Re:Sweat equity by Bogtha · 2012-10-24 10:45 · Score: 1

I'm somehow failing to understand.

Oh come on, you've got to be trolling. The context was clear. I didn't say anything about hobbyists in the sense that I didn't say anything about how it was desirable to exclude them. You were putting words in my mouth and I was pointing that out.

where should one find the capital to start a software business?

That's your problem, not mine. All I'm doing is pointing out that the cost of equipment and the developer programme are not the massive hurdles you make them out to be.

--
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
Re:Sweat equity by tepples · 2012-10-25 12:49 · Score: 1

Oh come on, you've got to be trolling. The context was clear.
I apologize for coming off that way. Since high school, I have known that I have a disability that affects my comprehension of subtle nuances.

where should one find the capital to start a software business?
That's your problem, not mine.
Then let me rephrase: If you were starting a business, where would you find the capital? Or are you trying to hint that you never plan to start a business?

Re:Android for the first $1250 by cerberusss · 2012-10-24 13:58 · Score: 1

That's not allowed :-)

Seriously, it's not. Instapaper's creator, Marco Arment, has a donate button on his website, but not in the app. That's because Apple's rules say that app purchases should go towards some sort of software feature.

--
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?

Re:Android for the first $1250 by BasilBrush · 2012-10-24 23:00 · Score: 1

A few bucks a day you say? Well going back to the reason for the analogy, Apple's developer program fee comes to 27 cents a day.

The OPs point is demonstrated nicely.

Re:Android for the first $1250 by BasilBrush · 2012-10-24 23:05 · Score: 1

It's certainly possible. But is it worth it for them? Anyone serious about iOS development will already have or will buy a Mac anyway. And for people who aren't serious... well they're not exactly short of people that are.

Also, presumably they only ported the libraries that were needed for iTunes and Safari.

Re:Android for the first $1250 by BasilBrush · 2012-10-24 23:12 · Score: 1

The flaying spaghetti monster save us from cross platform widget libraries.

Every platform has different UI design guidelines. And such cross platform systems tend to break them badly. Leaving the user wondering what the hell is wrong with the app.

Re:Android for the first $1250 by drinkypoo · 2012-10-24 23:25 · Score: 1

A few bucks a day you say? Well going back to the reason for the analogy, Apple's developer program fee comes to 27 cents a day.

27 cents a day over what period of time? Does that count the weeks to months you spend waiting for your app to be rejected without explanation?

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

Re:Android for the first $1250 by BasilBrush · 2012-10-25 01:52 · Score: 1

365 days. You can work out leap years for yourself.

Average app approval time 8 days. And rejections always have an explanation.

Do you have to pay for the dry ice that evaporates on days when you can't sell ice-cream?

Slashdot Mirror

The Struggles of Getting Into the App Store

329 comments