Why? Makes no sense. What does restrictions for software in the Mac app store have to do with any "antitrust"? Just create installers, sell through any of the multitude of other channels available and/or use other mechanisms like MacPorts to distribute your software.
Yeah, we should abandon freedom-restricting stuff like this. Run everything as root! Disable that pesky nazi firewall! Security is a straitjacket! Woo!
Where are the anti-trust lawsuits against Sony for only allowing installs from the PS Store on the PS3? And do you really feel the Mac's market share is approaching Windows in dominance? Where do you get your numbers?
Extrapolate much? A woman will not have 30 husbands a month after her wedding.
But It seems Slashdot users prefer "buyer beware" over security nowadays... or at least when it comes to Apple, I bet there have been positive comments for the sandbox solutions for Linux...
Yeah, it's the same thing as when Debian blocked the ability for a user to install anything via other channels than apt-get. Or so I heard. Maybe it was one of its other communist brethren. I haven't used it myself, of course, I'm just posting about things that aren't entirely impossible.
Of course not, they didn't sell software in the iTunes Store then.
What "fees" were before that in the store were between a music artist and the label/publisher, since Apple refused (and maybe still refuse) to deal directly with musicians, meaning you at least need someone like cdbaby or Magnatune as an intermediary if you want to sell your music there.
They charged $5 for XCode 4.0 between its release and the release of Lion; if you waited until after you installed Lion then XCode 4 suddenly was free, otherwise you could use the free XCode 3.x.
Why do you thing the app store front page and/or lists is the only way to market your app? Ever hear about this thing called "Facebook"? Or Google for that matter?
The 30% margin is the same that Google and Microsoft charge; sounds more like an "industry standard" than "high". And if you want visibility, do some marketing yourself you lazy sod.
Yes: The rich are rich because the DON'T spend their money. This is why you give payouts and tax reductions to the poor, since they are more likely to spend and thus bring money into the economy instead of harding it.
Not to mention that Google and Microsoft copied that 30% "fee" for their respective app stores. Amazon lets you off with 10% but then they get the privilege of setting the price as they see fit.
Note that Apple get $0 if you have a free app, unless that app uses iAds.
Yup, it forms part of the calculations for "is my business model sound?" just as in any trade you want to go into. But there are very few trades where the expenses are so low that a yearly $99 expense is going to be significant.
Do you also tell Google that when THEY take their 30% on the Marketplace? If you do not like Apple's terms, develop for another platform. Noone is forcing anyone to develop iOS apps. There is plenty of choice out there. You start to sound like some entitlement whore who wants companies to give you services for free while letting you dictate the terms.
Slashdot Mirror
I misinterpreted that the WP7 SDK extension would not install in my VS Express for Web, I guess they have umpteen different Express releases.
No problem for us since we will be splashing out on VS 2010 Pro anyway. :)
Yes, that is "bull". Why did you not post to info from Google? Like this?
http://www.google.com/support/androidmarket/developer/bin/answer.py?&&answer=112622
Oh, because it still says 30%, that's why.
What does a blog post have to do with actual reality? The terms still state 30% as of right now:
http://www.google.com/support/androidmarket/developer/bin/answer.py?&&answer=112622
As the iPad goes so goes the MAC
You doomsayers so far have not been able to come up with any hint of proof that this is the case.
And sandboxing gives the user far more control than the situations where J. Random App can do whatever it wants.
Why? Makes no sense. What does restrictions for software in the Mac app store have to do with any "antitrust"? Just create installers, sell through any of the multitude of other channels available and/or use other mechanisms like MacPorts to distribute your software.
Yeah, we should abandon freedom-restricting stuff like this. Run everything as root! Disable that pesky nazi firewall! Security is a straitjacket! Woo!
Adobe Photoshop Elements is already in the app store. Photoshop itself is unlikely though, since they generally sell that as boxed retail.
Where are the anti-trust lawsuits against Sony for only allowing installs from the PS Store on the PS3? And do you really feel the Mac's market share is approaching Windows in dominance? Where do you get your numbers?
man sandbox
Well, Adobe sells Photoshop Express and give away Carousel there. Microsoft's only entry there is the WP7 Connector to sync WP7 phones.
Extrapolate much? A woman will not have 30 husbands a month after her wedding.
But It seems Slashdot users prefer "buyer beware" over security nowadays... or at least when it comes to Apple, I bet there have been positive comments for the sandbox solutions for Linux...
Yeah, it's the same thing as when Debian blocked the ability for a user to install anything via other channels than apt-get. Or so I heard. Maybe it was one of its other communist brethren. I haven't used it myself, of course, I'm just posting about things that aren't entirely impossible.
What do you know, even the app store follows Sturgeon's Law...
Of course not, they didn't sell software in the iTunes Store then.
What "fees" were before that in the store were between a music artist and the label/publisher, since Apple refused (and maybe still refuse) to deal directly with musicians, meaning you at least need someone like cdbaby or Magnatune as an intermediary if you want to sell your music there.
They charged $5 for XCode 4.0 between its release and the release of Lion; if you waited until after you installed Lion then XCode 4 suddenly was free, otherwise you could use the free XCode 3.x.
... but since he said $0 and not the $25 sign-up fee so he uses some other channel than the Marketplace. Thus the Archos 43 can be a contender.
Why do you thing the app store front page and/or lists is the only way to market your app? Ever hear about this thing called "Facebook"? Or Google for that matter?
The 30% margin is the same that Google and Microsoft charge; sounds more like an "industry standard" than "high". And if you want visibility, do some marketing yourself you lazy sod.
Yes: The rich are rich because the DON'T spend their money. This is why you give payouts and tax reductions to the poor, since they are more likely to spend and thus bring money into the economy instead of harding it.
Not to mention that Google and Microsoft copied that 30% "fee" for their respective app stores. Amazon lets you off with 10% but then they get the privilege of setting the price as they see fit.
Note that Apple get $0 if you have a free app, unless that app uses iAds.
Yup, it forms part of the calculations for "is my business model sound?" just as in any trade you want to go into. But there are very few trades where the expenses are so low that a yearly $99 expense is going to be significant.
In fact, the WP7 SDK extension will not even install in Visual Studio Express. You need one of the paid versions.
Do you also tell Google that when THEY take their 30% on the Marketplace? If you do not like Apple's terms, develop for another platform. Noone is forcing anyone to develop iOS apps. There is plenty of choice out there. You start to sound like some entitlement whore who wants companies to give you services for free while letting you dictate the terms.
Which is the same cut Google takes in the Android Marketplace. But that is often forgotten...
... and the replied-to post talking about the $99 fee did ignore just that.
Anyway, selling on the the Android Market ditches those $99, but throws in a 90% piracy rate among the user base instead.