So let's do a little probability calculation here.....
Despite the big fuss that is made over Apple's rejections, let's say 1% of apps that follow the guidelines are rejected arbitrarily (an extremely high, unrealistic number). But app store sells are 1700% greater on the Apple store. Isn't it worth the risk?
And do you think the people who are buying the buy one get one free are the most desirable demographic? It's already been shown that statistically, Android users don't buy apps.
If I were choosing to develop for a platform, why would I choose one with only 5% of the sales?
People don't necessarily "prefer" Android. They prefer to stay with their own carrier. On AT&T where people had a choice between Android and iPhone, they chose the iPhone 14 to 1.
Have you notice that Verizon completely dropped their Droid Does campaign as soon as they got the iPhone? Now if you go to Verizon's website, you see three categories of phones - iPhones, smart phones, and feature phones. They've relegate Android to the bargain bin.
Have never understood all these "lack of tablet-optimized apps" BS... it all seems like FUD to me. Most iOS apps I have seen are identical between their tablet and phone versions.
Well you haven't seen many iPad apps. Even if you look no further than the standard apps like Mail, Calendar, Settings, YouTube, etc., you will see a huge difference between the interfaces on the iPad and the iPhone.
Not to even mention apps like Hulu, Netflix, Vevo, Pandora etc. that let you view the video non-full screen while browsing other content.
Last year, they made at most around $3.7 million (30% of 11 million). But even that's high. Google has carrier billing relationships in some places where the carrier got a cut.
Netflix? Hulu Plus? You know those are going to pulled from the App Store after June 30th right? Unless they (or you) cough up 30% (or 43%) extra.
Riiiight, because Apple is really going to go out of their way to piss off Netflix -- one of the only three commercial streaming apps available for the AppleTV.
I just do not get it especially when the notion of Android fragmentation is a myth and Google seems to confirm this. I am bewildered.
It's not just about the OS -- it's about the different hardware capabilities, the lack of encryption (that's what's keeping Netflix off), the differing resolution, etc.
An example of Apple's DRM are the restrictions on how many devices you can load one of the music files or app bundles onto, and the restrictions on moving files from an iPod to a computer rather than the other way 'round. By allowing users to play a music file on 5 different computers/iPods, they undercut the user's motivation to go to the torrents for DRM-free MP3s. That's what "somewhat-loosely-restrictive DRM" means.
Where have you been for the last three years?
Let's see where to start?
1. Apple has been selling DRM free AAC files that can be used by any device that plays AAC since 2008 -- not just 5. And just in case you didn't know AAC is not an Apple format and its supported by every modern cell phone.
2. You can load apps you purchase on any number of devices you own.
3. You can copy any purchased music whether it was purchased on another computer or on the device by right clicking on it within iTunes and choosing "Transfer Purchased Music" (I can't remember the exact command)
What about developers? They don't have much choice according to the links you provided, similar to the OEMs those days.
So whose fault is it that Android users are cheap?
But more to the point, there is nothing stopping him from offering in-app subscription and out of app subscription and heavily marketing his out of app subscription via Google Ads etc.
Do you think that most profit seeking developers would be happier giving Apple 30% or developing for Android and trying to sell software on their own site?
Microsoft must have done something right to get 90%+ share... right? Windows and IE6 users made that choice right? Why did they get smacked for it?
You mean "smack down" with a slap on the wrist?
Users have a choice to buy Android or Apple. And according to the latest stats -- Android has about an equal share of the smart phone market in the U.S. as Apple (27% vs. 25%).
But to answer your question...
Has Apple ever told a developer that they couldn't write an app for competing devices? MS threatened OEM's with higher prices if they bundles Netscape.
"The difference is that ANYBODY IN THE ENTIRE WORLD can compete with Readability by providing the exact same service taking only 29%, 5% or 0% or -30% , whereas iUsers are locked into a walled garden by Apple, so NOBODY IN THE ENTIRE WORLD can set up an alternative App Store and compete by charging less because of DRM lockdown. (Note the difference with Android and the Amazon App Store). Hence iUsers+iDevelopers must combinedly cough up the 30% surcharge."
And if Readability provides such a great service, Apple's "lockdown" is so draconian and Android provides a much better experience because of it's "openness", it seems like the Android Market should really be taking off and should be a godsend for both developers and users....
"Perhaps you can provide a service like this if you think it's easy and Readability shoudn't charge or charges too much."
So what you're saying is that Readabilty --a company that provides a service that provides exposure to authors -- should be able to charge for that service and they should be allowed to charge exactly 30% --- just like Apple does,
"The content authors are utterly free to offer this kind of service through any other app or their own app or website."
You mean like the creators of the Readability app are free to offer the app on Android or BlackBerry devices....
"There are no ways to offer apps directly(due to strict DRM) or through another store like the Amazon store like in Android."
But they are free to offer the app on Android devices if they don't like Apple's terms.. I thought Slashdot Wisdom (tm) was that iOS would soon be irrelevant anyway as Android takes over?
"All this not even mentioning that Apple used Readability's OSS code in Safari to make a similar feature. I guess this is what people mean when they say Apple is OSS friendly. Grab what can be grabbed and screw the developers for a few dollars when you can."
And Apple is the only company that makes money off of open source code?
Readability was a free app before it was pulled with the new rules.
You mean the free app that charges authors 30% for doing nothing but allowing them to be viewed on the Readability platform.....that business tactic seems awfully familiar....
They can't be too happy with this news and might be thinking it is intentional to close the HTML5 loophole for subscription apps.
Oh the solution that Apple gave developers before the app store came on-line and that everyone cried foul about?
"If you can only run one thing at a time, you need less memory."
And funny enough, I've been able to run more than one app at a time since June of last year....
"Its the stupid things that drive me nuts with the iOS devices. I was doing some banking... and I couldn't have a calculator open at the same time as the bank app... and leaving the bank app meant I had to re-login. It was idiotic."
Funny, my banking app doesn't require me to re-login.....
"I find as soon as I want to actually do anything even remotely serious on an ios device, they drive me nuts."
It might have helped if you had experience with an iOS device -- it's only been out for *nine* months.....
Isn't the selling point of iOS that it runs only one application at a time? That when you switch between apps it shuts down one and starts the other? In which case 512MB should be enough for anyone.:)
Well, no applications have been able to run in the background since last June.....
And by "run" I do mean....
My Nike+ GPS app can run and give me feedback while Mapquest 4 Mobile gives turning directions (this was actually an accident) while Pandora plays music, which can all be interrupted if I get a call either from the phone "app" or Yahoo Messenger (video or audio).....
No, they get to determine who has the legal right to use the UNIX trademark, nothing else. Trademarks are legal names, not concepts, not design philosophies, do not try to conflate them just because you want to make your OS of choice look better.
So do you really think that Apple just paid the Open Group to use the Unix trademark without going through a certification process?
UNIX isn't a set of libraries you have to implement, it's not a bunch of binaries you have to emulate, it's a particular design philosophy and one OSX does not follow outside the very, very small part of the OS that's tailored specifically to pass the UNIX certification and little else.
Joe_Random_Slashdot_Poster (916851) does not get to define what is and is not Unix -- the Open Group does.
Even the most hardcore OSX user would readily admit it follows MacOS' design decisions rather than UNIX', and the reason why that doesn't sit well with Linux users ought to be obvious. So no, your example actually favors the GP's argument than otherwise.
By definition, if an operating system is certified as complying with the Single Unix Specification, it has followed the Unix design.
MacOS is Unix, Linux distributions are only "Unix-like", unless they receive certification.
Slashdot Mirror
So let's do a little probability calculation here.....
Despite the big fuss that is made over Apple's rejections, let's say 1% of apps that follow the guidelines are rejected arbitrarily (an extremely high, unrealistic number). But app store sells are 1700% greater on the Apple store. Isn't it worth the risk?
And do you think the people who are buying the buy one get one free are the most desirable demographic? It's already been shown that statistically, Android users don't buy apps.
Really "insanely profitable"
http://www.asymco.com/2010/08/17/androids-pursuit-of-the-biggest-losers/
If I were choosing to develop for a platform, why would I choose one with only 5% of the sales?
People don't necessarily "prefer" Android. They prefer to stay with their own carrier. On AT&T where people had a choice between Android and iPhone, they chose the iPhone 14 to 1.
Have you notice that Verizon completely dropped their Droid Does campaign as soon as they got the iPhone? Now if you go to Verizon's website, you see three categories of phones - iPhones, smart phones, and feature phones. They've relegate Android to the bargain bin.
I think it might be better to consider that The Apple app market saw over 17x the sales of the Android Market last year.....
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20032012-37.html
The iPad had 500+ apps on day 1. Including NetFlix.
Well you haven't seen many iPad apps. Even if you look no further than the standard apps like Mail, Calendar, Settings, YouTube, etc., you will see a huge difference between the interfaces on the iPad and the iPhone.
Not to even mention apps like Hulu, Netflix, Vevo, Pandora etc. that let you view the video non-full screen while browsing other content.
Not Really.....
http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/21/861-5-percent-growth-android-puny/
Last year, they made at most around $3.7 million (30% of 11 million). But even that's high. Google has carrier billing relationships in some places where the carrier got a cut.
Android users don't buy apps.
Riiiight, because Apple is really going to go out of their way to piss off Netflix -- one of the only three commercial streaming apps available for the AppleTV.
It's not just about the OS -- it's about the different hardware capabilities, the lack of encryption (that's what's keeping Netflix off), the differing resolution, etc.
Besides, Android users don't buy apps.
http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/21/861-5-percent-growth-android-puny/
Where have you been for the last three years?
Let's see where to start?
1. Apple has been selling DRM free AAC files that can be used by any device that plays AAC since 2008 -- not just 5. And just in case you didn't know AAC is not an Apple format and its supported by every modern cell phone.
2. You can load apps you purchase on any number of devices you own.
3. You can copy any purchased music whether it was purchased on another computer or on the device by right clicking on it within iTunes and choosing "Transfer Purchased Music" (I can't remember the exact command)
So whose fault is it that Android users are cheap?
But more to the point, there is nothing stopping him from offering in-app subscription and out of app subscription and heavily marketing his out of app subscription via Google Ads etc.
Do you think that most profit seeking developers would be happier giving Apple 30% or developing for Android and trying to sell software on their own site?
"The difference is that ANYBODY IN THE ENTIRE WORLD can compete with Readability by providing the exact same service taking only 29%, 5% or 0% or -30% , whereas iUsers are locked into a walled garden by Apple, so NOBODY IN THE ENTIRE WORLD can set up an alternative App Store and compete by charging less because of DRM lockdown. (Note the difference with Android and the Amazon App Store). Hence iUsers+iDevelopers must combinedly cough up the 30% surcharge."
And if Readability provides such a great service, Apple's "lockdown" is so draconian and Android provides a much better experience because of it's "openness", it seems like the Android Market should really be taking off and should be a godsend for both developers and users....
Obviously, that's not happening....
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20032012-37.html
"iUsers" have made a choice to be "iUsers" and to spend over 17x as much buying apps. Apple must be doing something right...
"Perhaps you can provide a service like this if you think it's easy and Readability shoudn't charge or charges too much."
So what you're saying is that Readabilty --a company that provides a service that provides exposure to authors -- should be able to charge for that service and they should be allowed to charge exactly 30% --- just like Apple does,
"The content authors are utterly free to offer this kind of service through any other app or their own app or website."
You mean like the creators of the Readability app are free to offer the app on Android or BlackBerry devices....
"There are no ways to offer apps directly(due to strict DRM) or through another store like the Amazon store like in Android."
But they are free to offer the app on Android devices if they don't like Apple's terms.. I thought Slashdot Wisdom (tm) was that iOS would soon be irrelevant anyway as Android takes over?
"All this not even mentioning that Apple used Readability's OSS code in Safari to make a similar feature. I guess this is what people mean when they say Apple is OSS friendly. Grab what can be grabbed and screw the developers for a few dollars when you can."
And Apple is the only company that makes money off of open source code?
And Android is supported by Google because they believe in "openness" and "freedom".......
You mean the free app that charges authors 30% for doing nothing but allowing them to be viewed on the Readability platform.....that business tactic seems awfully familiar....
Oh the solution that Apple gave developers before the app store came on-line and that everyone cried foul about?
The original iPhone had 128MB of RAM compared to 512MB for the iPhone 4. The GPU was at least 50% slower and the processor was half as fast.
"If you can only run one thing at a time, you need less memory."
And funny enough, I've been able to run more than one app at a time since June of last year....
"Its the stupid things that drive me nuts with the iOS devices. I was doing some banking... and I couldn't have a calculator open at the same time as the bank app... and leaving the bank app meant I had to re-login. It was idiotic."
Funny, my banking app doesn't require me to re-login.....
"I find as soon as I want to actually do anything even remotely serious on an ios device, they drive me nuts."
It might have helped if you had experience with an iOS device -- it's only been out for *nine* months.....
Well, no applications have been able to run in the background since last June.....
And by "run" I do mean....
My Nike+ GPS app can run and give me feedback while Mapquest 4 Mobile gives turning directions (this was actually an accident) while Pandora plays music, which can all be interrupted if I get a call either from the phone "app" or Yahoo Messenger (video or audio).....
Here were the top cell phones in 2004....
http://reviews.cnet.com/1710-5-0.html?year=2004&node=6454
So do you think that Motorola and Samsung should be porting Android to these?
Good thing we have facts.....
http://www.mediabistro.com/thinkmobile/study-shows-ipad-usage-increases-over-time_b8613
So if the iPad is shitty....
What does that say about the top of the line Android tablet?
http://gizmodo.com/#!5781376/ipad-2-benchmarks-way-better-than-the-xoom-kills-the-original-ipad
http://thegadgets.net/feature/ipad-2-with-ios-4-3-beats-motorola-xoom-in-javascript-benchmark-tests/
So do you really think that Apple just paid the Open Group to use the Unix trademark without going through a certification process?
Joe_Random_Slashdot_Poster (916851) does not get to define what is and is not Unix -- the Open Group does.
By definition, if an operating system is certified as complying with the Single Unix Specification, it has followed the Unix design.
MacOS is Unix, Linux distributions are only "Unix-like", unless they receive certification.