Oh, right, because only those who have money to pay will make good apps. No flaw in that theory...
And anyone with a salary might just not want to pay 99$ just to share what he does. But I'll rephrase that, that guy working on this Phd that aced every course so far will get +- 1800$ a month as a scolarship. That needs to pay for a home, food, car, etc. To that guy, 99$ is a big deal.
As I said before, it's not the 30% (that I think it's high, but it's acceptable), it's the high price tag just to get the app on the phone and the 30% on all in-app purchases (making sure that no one can compete with iTunes).
And I already said I don't believe google is any better on their market, but at least they do give you the option to avoid it - and that's something.
I was under the impression that a venti was under 3$, you're getting ripped off.
Anyways, a 99$ price tag is enough to keep some developers (me) away. And you're not putting your app in front of everyone - you're jumping to the bottom of the pile hoping for the best. And that's the problem. You have better chances of recouping your money in a lottery.
And the biggest problem, in my opinion, is not that you have to pay, is that paying only gives you access for a year - and you can't even test your app in a phone without doing it.
Apple could put a stop to the rigging, just by removing the top app list and / or featuring the new and cool stuff instead of the same old crap over and over again.
No, it wouldn't. No one simply hosting something would pay 100$ per year, but
I get hosting for free, and so does almost everyone in CS. It might not be enough, but more than enough to distribute an application.
My ISP gives me free hosting.
Github? Sourceforge?
And most of all, I've been part of an online store (we sold via bank transfer within our country) and the site operating costs were around 30$ per year.
I want you to tell me the number of developers that sell more that 144 pieces (if you read the article - not many);
I want you to tell me why shouldn't I be able to offer my app for free in my own website (that's already payed for).
I want you to tell me why do the result of my hobby needs to be sold and tied to a profit margin and even compared to working at a fast food restaurant. And I don't completely disagree with the 30%, but I do hate with a passion the 99$ fee and the 30% in the in-app purchases.
Where did I say I thought google's approach was better? What I say about the app store and not existing enough support for great apps that get buried in the clutter is there just the same (but a one time fee of 25$ for access do seems more reasonable).
But since you mention android, the main difference is that you don't HAVE to use the android's app store to sell anything, but you do on the iPhone.
No, you can't. I tried it, but you clearly haven't. Good for you...
But if you do find how, please tell me. I've been dying to know this (and I have more than one friend with exactly the same person). It seems we are all stupid.
I repeat, without jailbreaking your phone you can't send anything to it without paying the 99$.
The problem I'm complaining about is that quality isn't rewarded when it should, and they already have the means to do it (the approval process). Having an app that deserves recognition is not easy, but I do believe extraordinary developers should not have to suffer because they don't have hundreds of dollars to invest in marketing and whatnot...
Yes, but that's two different things. I don't apple to sponsor my app, I want more visibility to unknown good apps (they do test them all, right?). That same app can do any kind of marketing they want, I was talking about ways of apple changing it from a "lottery" ecosystem to a rewarding system for good developers.
What I meant for visibility is not giving so much airtime for the same apps over and over again and start showing the world good apps that deserve to be recognized, but are buried in the billionth submission to the app store. They are supposed to test the apps, it'd cost them nothing and make the system more developer friendly.
And yes, 30% is standard, but 30% for in-app purchases is not... And the 99$ per year is actually an extra 10% if you sell around 1000 copies of your app.
Same answer I gave the other guy. A self-signed certificate can be used to encrypt the connection and add an extra layer of security. And since I trust myself, and I guess the costumer trusts me enough to send me money, this kind of certificate is more than enough. Most people have no idea of what a CA is anyways... And if I did get money, I can then get my "legitimate" certificate and pay for it, but only after I do make it.
You do know that the certificate is used to encrypt the connection, right? It doesn't matter if the costumer trusts a CA (most don't even know what it is) if it trusts you and your self signed certificate, it'll be enough for encryption and security.
If you don't pay 99$ or jailbreak your phone you WON'T be able to send anything to the iPhone (unless it changed in iOS 5). If you never tried it before (I did), please say nothing. You can get your phone into that mode if, and only if you have a developer account. Full stop.
I have access to an iPhone and an iPad. I want you to try and test any application in a simulator. No matter how good it is (and I admit, it's stupidly better than the android counterpart), you can never get a feel for your app without trying it on the device. But that's just me, I'm sure you can, same way you can send apps to the phone without paying the 99$.
No, but I see apple trailing on the edge of anti-competitive maneuvers with the in-app purchase policies. It's almost impossible to compete with apple in the rental field.
Slashdot Mirror
you mean, like a 500$ tablet and a 1300$ computer?
why should I need to "invest" 99$ to test things on my phone?
Oh, right, because only those who have money to pay will make good apps. No flaw in that theory...
And anyone with a salary might just not want to pay 99$ just to share what he does. But I'll rephrase that, that guy working on this Phd that aced every course so far will get +- 1800$ a month as a scolarship. That needs to pay for a home, food, car, etc. To that guy, 99$ is a big deal.
And hobbyists = crap is still ridiculous.
As I said before, it's not the 30% (that I think it's high, but it's acceptable), it's the high price tag just to get the app on the phone and the 30% on all in-app purchases (making sure that no one can compete with iTunes).
And I already said I don't believe google is any better on their market, but at least they do give you the option to avoid it - and that's something.
I was under the impression that a venti was under 3$, you're getting ripped off.
Anyways, a 99$ price tag is enough to keep some developers (me) away. And you're not putting your app in front of everyone - you're jumping to the bottom of the pile hoping for the best. And that's the problem. You have better chances of recouping your money in a lottery.
And the biggest problem, in my opinion, is not that you have to pay, is that paying only gives you access for a year - and you can't even test your app in a phone without doing it.
Apple could put a stop to the rigging, just by removing the top app list and / or featuring the new and cool stuff instead of the same old crap over and over again.
Why? Because sometimes that 15 year old is a genious and you don't want to keep them out of your store (i'd say).
Because a very talented google or microsoft emplyee might do a side project that's worth your money?
Your conclusion that hobbyist = crap is ridiculous.
No, it wouldn't. No one simply hosting something would pay 100$ per year, but
I get hosting for free, and so does almost everyone in CS. It might not be enough, but more than enough to distribute an application.
My ISP gives me free hosting.
Github? Sourceforge?
And most of all, I've been part of an online store (we sold via bank transfer within our country) and the site operating costs were around 30$ per year.
Saying 99$ is good is completely ridiculous.
His curriculum must be brilliant.
More lack of money than confidence, believe me :)
I want you to tell me the number of developers that sell more that 144 pieces (if you read the article - not many);
I want you to tell me why shouldn't I be able to offer my app for free in my own website (that's already payed for).
I want you to tell me why do the result of my hobby needs to be sold and tied to a profit margin and even compared to working at a fast food restaurant. And I don't completely disagree with the 30%, but I do hate with a passion the 99$ fee and the 30% in the in-app purchases.
Where did I say I thought google's approach was better? What I say about the app store and not existing enough support for great apps that get buried in the clutter is there just the same (but a one time fee of 25$ for access do seems more reasonable).
But since you mention android, the main difference is that you don't HAVE to use the android's app store to sell anything, but you do on the iPhone.
*exactly the same problem (obviously)
No, you can't. I tried it, but you clearly haven't. Good for you...
But if you do find how, please tell me. I've been dying to know this (and I have more than one friend with exactly the same person). It seems we are all stupid.
I repeat, without jailbreaking your phone you can't send anything to it without paying the 99$.
no... you said "you might have to work almost a whole day to make that".
I said, no, you have a work an entire week in a full time job to make that
Ok, I see your point, but it'd still work if it was a one time fee and not a recurring yearly one...
The problem I'm complaining about is that quality isn't rewarded when it should, and they already have the means to do it (the approval process). Having an app that deserves recognition is not easy, but I do believe extraordinary developers should not have to suffer because they don't have hundreds of dollars to invest in marketing and whatnot...
Yes, but that's two different things. I don't apple to sponsor my app, I want more visibility to unknown good apps (they do test them all, right?). That same app can do any kind of marketing they want, I was talking about ways of apple changing it from a "lottery" ecosystem to a rewarding system for good developers.
What I meant for visibility is not giving so much airtime for the same apps over and over again and start showing the world good apps that deserve to be recognized, but are buried in the billionth submission to the app store. They are supposed to test the apps, it'd cost them nothing and make the system more developer friendly.
And yes, 30% is standard, but 30% for in-app purchases is not... And the 99$ per year is actually an extra 10% if you sell around 1000 copies of your app.
Same answer I gave the other guy. A self-signed certificate can be used to encrypt the connection and add an extra layer of security. And since I trust myself, and I guess the costumer trusts me enough to send me money, this kind of certificate is more than enough. Most people have no idea of what a CA is anyways... And if I did get money, I can then get my "legitimate" certificate and pay for it, but only after I do make it.
You do know that the certificate is used to encrypt the connection, right? It doesn't matter if the costumer trusts a CA (most don't even know what it is) if it trusts you and your self signed certificate, it'll be enough for encryption and security.
Death threats over the internet? This is madness, I tell you, madness!
Ok, this is my last reply to you.
If you don't pay 99$ or jailbreak your phone you WON'T be able to send anything to the iPhone (unless it changed in iOS 5). If you never tried it before (I did), please say nothing. You can get your phone into that mode if, and only if you have a developer account. Full stop.
I have access to an iPhone and an iPad. I want you to try and test any application in a simulator. No matter how good it is (and I admit, it's stupidly better than the android counterpart), you can never get a feel for your app without trying it on the device. But that's just me, I'm sure you can, same way you can send apps to the phone without paying the 99$.
No, but I see apple trailing on the edge of anti-competitive maneuvers with the in-app purchase policies. It's almost impossible to compete with apple in the rental field.
And that's why the 99$ are to much. For the casual guy 99$ for a hobby will be a lot.
You're right, I'm not a professional developer. But I'm a developer that thinks the gate is too hard to pull open.
And did you read the article? The majority of the developers don't get jack shit in return. They are comparing it to winning in a casino FFS :x
it's 1/4 of the minimum wage (that's a week's work) in my country.