I work in a chemistry lab, so I wash my hands several times a day. I still wear a watch - it just sits higher up my arm than my wrist. So, I guess it's more accurate to call it an armwatch.
Almost everyone I know wears a watch, including me, and my peer group extends from age 18 up to about 55. I can't pick out one demographic among them all that doesn't wear a watch.
It's more of an outlier to not be wearing one.
Mine is a simple battery powered one with a mechanical action since I prefer a clock face over a digital one.
MIDI music? The Mega Drive didn't use MIDI, dumbass.
Sorry, I meant 6 channel non-CD-quality music. My apologies for a flippant throwaway description. I'm sorry to have offended someone who was so brave in calling me a dumbass that he didn't log in. I'll be simply inconsolable with grief over it. Still, I'll be here when you've grown up, kid.
That must have been the Mega CD version or the Playstation version. The original 16 bit version on the Mega Drive had purely midi music. It was one of the classic 16 bit soundtracks.
That is what I thought when I saw gun targeting...NO, FUCK NO, you are missing the whole point, what made that FUN was that it was simple, you could grab a chain or a bat and whack the other guy or kick him into traffic, but because they kept it simple you could still just race and win.
Exactly. That and the 16 bit music were the best parts about the game.
I spent hours playing Road Rash II on the Mega Drive with my brother and my friends and it was pure arcade action. If I wanted to play GTA or a shooter I'd play GTA or any number of shooters. Road Rash was something special.
Also, damn you you Public Enemy! Made me Nitro right into a hidden cop car again!
So, can I still go to Comixology.com and buy and then download it to my iPad?
Is sale or availability being blocked?
No you can buy it on the web, and you can also get it in iOS. Apple never banned it. The writers "pre banned" and only released it on their site instead of on their site and in the site as they did for the previous 11 releases, assuming Apple would ban it and then took advantage of the free publicity. Apple approved it, so it backfired somewhat.
I am the one who decides what I can get on my device NOT CRApple...
Well, Apple had nothing to do with "banning" it, of course. The article is all lies, but given your obvious vehement hatred of Apple, no real loss there.
Then I realized that hype is just that and fanboyism is just a lack of perspective. They don't affect me. The stories, however, occasionally contain little gems. Like this one; I became aware of SAGA:) I will definitely take a closer look at it later.
Mostly I just enjoy the fact that nothing coming out from Apple affects me and watch the whole show as a grand social experiment:)
I guess their marketing strategy worked then.
Apple didn't pull this. The writers of SAGA pulled it in anticipation of it being banned by Apple.
Result: huge shitstorm of publicity on the internet. Apple blamed unfairly, but it's the usual haters so no real damage done there, and a large influx of new readers. Everyone wins!
You are missing the central point: This doesn't even require reading TFA, just the summary. Previous issues of Saga had as graphic or more so heterosexual situations. Yet they were not banned, nor have they been banned. Saga 1-11 is still available. So the problem here is that heterosexual and gay are being treated differently.
No, the problem here is that the article is nonsense.
Apple didn't pull the app, the original app publishers "pre pulled" it, thinking that Apple would just pull it anyway (they have not, and it will be up on the store soon).
It is a genius move, since it generates enormous publicity.
And I almost didn't post it, as it's clear in TFA that Apple pulled it from the in-app purchases, but didn't block the app from playing it (allowing it to be bought 3-rd party and sync'd with the app), nor blocked access to the content, as it could be bought from the Apple iBookstore (though I have no idea if content bought through iBookstore can be played on other apps). So if it's easily buyable, but blocked at the same time, what did they do any why? Well, Apple will claim it's not anti-competitive because you can buy it through the 3-rd party web site and sync it with your app. Apple also didn't advertise it was available on iBookstore, they just didn't pull it from there. So in this case Apple may be right, but if Apple is operating under two sets of rules for apps, one for other's and a different one for Apple Apps, that is anti-competitive by definition. Though if that was sufficient to win in court, one of the other affected apps would have complained by now, instead affected companies like Google decided that rather than fight, they would work with Apple.
No, nor are they legally required to sell on Android. You failed at reading comprehension, because I explicitly stated that I was talking about the requirements of the users. Please try again.
the official Google store has the same financial terms as the iOS store.
Bullshit prevarication. iOS does not have the same functional terms as Android does, because you cannot install apps without the official Apple app store without breaking the law, but you can do so on Android. That is the difference. If you want to sell apps for iOS, then only users willing to break the law are going to buy from you in a venue where you're going to give Apple less than 30%, or as others have pointed out, 33% if you're one of the majority of app developers making less than $3k given the additional $100 fee, to say nothing of the Apple tax. A machine suitable for Android development can be had for $300 or so, how much is a Mac Mini?
The argument is claiming that a 30% cut is excessive. Why is it not excessive for Google just because a developer can choose to "go it alone"?
If you don't see how choice changes the equation, I cannot help you.
I'm aware you were talking about users - I was just using some hyperbole to point out that development on iOS is a choice, not something that a developer is forced into. Your point that Google's store is different because a developer can choose not to sell in it. I'm noting that the same is true of iOS - no one is forcing you to sell on it.
A machine suitable for iOS development can be had for $300 or so too. Why says you have to buy brand new? If the cost of a development machine is a dealbreaker in a business designed to make a living out of mobile software development, perhaps don't give up the day job? Either way, that's irrelevant.
Let's change the argument to two stores in two different towns.
Store A is the only store in FruitTown, and charges a 30% cut for any products it stocks.
Store B is one of two stores in RobotTown, and also charges a 30% cut for any products it stocks. Alternatively, there's a little open air stall on the outskirts of the town that a vendor can use to sell his product if he doesn't want to use Store B and pay the fee.
No, are Store A and Store B's 30% cuts equally excessive? Is Store B's cut now acceptable because you can use the open air market on the outskirts? We'll also assume, for the sake of cutting that argument off at the pass, that Store A and Store B own all the land the respective towns are built on, but that Store B doesn't mind if you put up your own vendor shack on the outskirts. Is its 30% cut should you choose to use its services excessive, or any different to before?
The argument is "Google's 30% cut is ok because you can use other stores". I'm arguing that if it's not excessive for Google, then it's not excessive for Apple, and vice versa
And I'm arguing that you're using specious reasoning for some reason I can't discern, because the situation is clearly different. In the case of Apple, if you want to go to someone who doesn't take 30%, your users have to break the law. In the case of Android, you can distribute directly to the users yourself, and your users don't have to break the law. That's when 30% isn't 30%. In one case it is legally mandatory and in the other case it is not. If you don't see that using the law to enforce your restriction changes the situation, then there's nothing I can do to explain this to you.
Developers are legally required to sell on iOS?
Developing for iOS is a choice, as it is on Android. You have *more* choices on Android, but that doesn't change the fact that the official Google store has the same financial terms as the iOS store. 30% is 30%. Your options should you choose not to use the official store on either platform vary, but the stores themselves work the same way. There's nothing specious about it.
The argument is claiming that a 30% cut is excessive. Why is it not excessive for Google just because a developer can choose to "go it alone"? It doesn't change Google's position - either charging 30% is excessive or it isn't.
Apple doesn't stop you selling your app in other places either
No, there is one rule, and it is this. If it is illegal to run apps sold in other places on your phone, then you're not actually permitting selling the app in other places. And since that is very much the situation (at least in the USA) the fact is that Android is the superior platform in this case. If you go to install an APK from another source, which is as simple as opening the file, you are prompted to permit installing applications from third party sources. You don't even have that option with an iDevice unless you break the law.
I'm not arguing the "superior" platform, I'm querying the assertion that a 30% cut on Google's store is ok (according to slashdot), but a 30% cut on Apple's store is "extremely excessive" purely because Apple's store (and web apps) are the only non-enterprise/non-hobbiest way to install apps.
The argument is "Google's 30% cut is ok because you can use other stores". I'm arguing that if it's not excessive for Google, then it's not excessive for Apple, and vice versa. Either both are gouging "extremely in excess of their operation costs", or they're both not. Even if the argument is "a developer can choose to sell via alternative means on android", the argument still boils down to whether the costs levied by Google are excessive.
Personally, I think the cut is fine. I don't agree with the cut on in-app content that Apple also levies, but I can see why it exists (easy dodge to give away your app for free and charge to unlock the features to avoid the 30% cut if it's only charged on initial purchases) - it would be better if it were more granular. Overall, however, for the services provided for that cut, developers are getting a pretty good deal, from Apple and from Google.
It's called Google, and as I understand it, they're one of the biggest companies on the planet and they don't charge or take a cut of your website's fees to operate. Their profit margins aren't exactly... tiny.
Stopped reading here. If you can't understand why Google's services are free and where their revenue comes from (and by extension, who their actual customers are), then I can't help you.
The one piece I got to before that was about payment processing. Again, you seem to misunderstand. The cost of doing business for a vendor that handles credit card payments (ie, Apple in this case, acting as a proxy for developers selling apps) is non-zero (I guess the sarcasm passed you by, but I'll let it slide). This is compounded by frequent small transactions which are much more affected by the fee imposed by the card issuer/financial network provider, hence the reason that many brick and mortar stores have a minimum purchase amount on a card. I was merely pointing out that you left that off the cost of doing business. It's rolled into the 30% cut Apple takes. Google does the same thing on their store with their 30% cut, which people seem to think is ok (because it is a good deal for all concerned)
Maybe there was more coherence in the rest of the post, but it doesn't look likely. Sorry.
Sure it is, but the difference here is that nobody needs to sell through Google Play to sell android applications. There are several other android stores and developers can even sell applications at their own web sites, as Humblebundle does, for example. If you don't like their fee you are not forced to sell though them and they cannot prevent you from selling your Apps elsewhere.
Ah, so one rule for Google, one for Apple.
Apple doesn't stop you selling your app in other places either, and you can even release it as a web app on iOS if you so choose (less effective than a dedicated app, but some developers have gone that route - Apple even promoted it themselves during the iOS maps fiasco mentioning that the web version of google maps was available while they waited for Google to submit the native version to the store).
But, just to boil your argument right down, you're saying that Google's 30% is excessive but ok because you can sell via non-official app stores if you like, but Apple's 30% is excessive and not ok because iOS only has web apps and the app store as software sources?
Wow, I can see you simply don't live in the real world, and you accuse Apple users of being affected by the RDF.
I see you left of payment processing and support, but those are zero costs of course. It doesn't cost you anything to support your customers or handle payments.
As to "renting space in a data center", I imagine you know Apple's needs better than them, but they decided to actually *build* data centres of their own. I guess your armchair quarterbacking has analysed their needs perfectly though. You should probably email them and suggest they just rent some space from dropbox (as was suggested seriously in another comment on this).
My point about Apple's financial statements was not that fraud never happens (duh!), but that Apple's filings are public and that it *is* something that can be used against them if they are less than honest. If a large corporation that was involved in a large multi-billion dollar lawsuit with Apple (can you think of any off the top of your head?) had any suspicion that Apple was not playing it level in their filings then the stink would already have been raised. Fraud happens all the time, but that does not mean it is rampant - especially in a company as closely scrutinised as Apple. By all means, if you think they are lying about their filings then do something about it rather than just implying that they are because it fits your expectations and prejudices.
Also, I find it amusing that you consider the $99 annual fee to not only be "hidden" (seriously, wtf?) but that it is somehow crippling. You're focussing on developers who only make $3000 or less, which clearly covers all hobbyists - the clear indication here is that hobbyist developers are actually finding success on the store. The parallel to draw there is not whether they are making a living off that (if iOS development is all you do and you make $3k total then you're doing it wrong) but what they would earn in the absence of the app store. What are the earnings of those same group of sub-3k developers on Android, for example? Or simply those releasing software for any platform via their own distribution method.
Apple's model is the same as Google's - a 30% cut to handle distribution, store presence (not marketing, unless you get featured), payment processing, support, and hosting with nothing but a chunk of cash landing in your account every month to avoid all those hassles. Everyone except slashdot users thinks that is an excellent deal (except when it;s Google when it's somehow also an excellent deal because "freedom!").
I know it doesn't fit the slashdot apple hating brigade, but the app store is a good thing for developers. If you do not like it then you're free to avoid it entirely and go another way - nothing stopping you. The choices are there. Overall a mobile application developer is going to find it an very beneficial market to develop for.
30% is far to much, and extremely in excess of any operation costs they may have.
Does that apply to Google's store on Android too then?
Can we have that on the record that if Apple's 30% cut is "extremely in excess of any operation costs they may have" that the 30% Google charges is also "extremely in excess" too?
"Apple must make the majority of any profit to be had. Developers will be paid only a fraction of what their efforts are worth. Loyalty to the Furo--er, Brand is absolute. Apps which go against our brandalist(tm) propaganda are to be banned with immediate effect using one of the dozen or so vaguely-defined rules outlined below. Ka-Pla!"
But more seriously guys... if you're developing for Apple, prepare to be raped. They don't give a flying fuck through a rolling doughnut about you, the developer. You should feel privileged to develop for the legacy of the Great Man Jobs. How dare you ask for a fair share of the profit! If you want that, go slink off and develop for (spits) that Anderzoid platform or whatever it's called. Apple is the future. Suck it up, cupcake.
Interesting, given that the split on revenue is 70:30 in favour of the developer and for that 30% they handle all of the hosting, distribution, updates, credit card payments and billing etc and just give you the money, greatly simplifying the process of online distribution involving small transactions.
The App Store itself has been an enormous cash cow for developers, large and small alike.
Apple's financial statements tell you exactly how much profit they make on the store (hint: it's extremely low, but it is above zero), and if you think they're lying about that as has been often suggested then file a complaint over fraudulent financial reporting - it's a very serious crime.
Developers, on the other hand, are making hay on the store. I'd be interested to see how you justify Apple making "the majority of any profit to be had" with some actual numbers, or if it's just more rampant, ill-informed Apple bashing as usual.
Medicine and medical research suffers from two problems:
1. Inherent difficulty, both technical (huge diversity and complexity of human physiology) and ethical (can't round up people to experiment on - at least not "in principle").
2. The medical-industrial complex that is the tangled mess of big pharma, academia, and regulators with huge amount of money slushing around.
The combination makes medicine and medical research particularly toxic to conducting good science. You tell me another field that comes even close.
Chemistry is not far off, especially with all the overlap with Med Chem.
Yeah, that's way different than all those other connectors. Not.
Well done, you have noticed that they very deliberately chose to use the MDP connector.
Not sure if this is sarcasm or genuine buffoonery...
If it is a troll, well played sir.
On the other hand, if you believe the MDP port is "almost indistinguishable" (direct quote) from microUSB and/or microHDMI then I think you should probably box up your computer and return it to the store. It will be better for everyone in the long run.
Well my Sony Vaio has an usb compatible thunderbolt port, which only can be used to connect the external video card, and as a regular usb 3.0 port. I think Sony is paying Apple for a license to use the technology. Apple could easily make the thunderbolt port work as an usb port too, but they just don't because they want to sell extra cables.
Again, the misinformation around thunderbolt is hilarious.
Apple DOES NOT OWN the Thunderbolt technology. It belongs to Intel. There is no requirement to make it fit into a USB port, or to only work that way. The official spec calls for the use of the mini displayport connector, which Apple owns the licence to, which it has granted royalty free licencing to anyone who wants to use it. The MDP connector looks nothing like USB.
Sony is not paying Apple anything to use the technology.
Do each of the devices get their own DMA signalling, or are you crippled to only one device being fast at a time? How does context sharing of the pipe sharing work? I imagine that this -could- be a great step in the right direction, but they need a lot more than just a raw fat pipe to make multiple peripherals fast and responsive.
It's basically an external extension of the PCI bus, so works in very much the same way. Instead of slots on the motherboard, it's just rolled into a connector and a cable.
Apple has pissed off all the other CE manufacturers. There will be nothing to plug the other end into.
Without general support great features are worthless. Apple is repeating Sony's mistake with betamax. They won't share, thus it will fail.
Great technology without support is worthless.
How are Apple "not sharing"?
The technology is owned by Intel, and was developed with the assistance of Apple. Apple also licenced (for free, in perpetuity) the mini displayport connector and port that TB uses. Intel have been promoting it since launch.
Not really seeing how this is Apple not sharing, given that it's not Apple who actually controls the technology, but such is the way with/. posts - the barest tissue of lies covering the bare bones of the truth. The exclusivity deal was over more than a year ago.
Slashdot Mirror
I work in a chemistry lab, so I wash my hands several times a day. I still wear a watch - it just sits higher up my arm than my wrist. So, I guess it's more accurate to call it an armwatch.
Where on earth do you live?
Almost everyone I know wears a watch, including me, and my peer group extends from age 18 up to about 55. I can't pick out one demographic among them all that doesn't wear a watch.
It's more of an outlier to not be wearing one.
Mine is a simple battery powered one with a mechanical action since I prefer a clock face over a digital one.
MIDI music? The Mega Drive didn't use MIDI, dumbass.
Sorry, I meant 6 channel non-CD-quality music. My apologies for a flippant throwaway description. I'm sorry to have offended someone who was so brave in calling me a dumbass that he didn't log in. I'll be simply inconsolable with grief over it. Still, I'll be here when you've grown up, kid.
That must have been the Mega CD version or the Playstation version. The original 16 bit version on the Mega Drive had purely midi music. It was one of the classic 16 bit soundtracks.
That is what I thought when I saw gun targeting...NO, FUCK NO, you are missing the whole point, what made that FUN was that it was simple, you could grab a chain or a bat and whack the other guy or kick him into traffic, but because they kept it simple you could still just race and win.
Exactly. That and the 16 bit music were the best parts about the game.
I spent hours playing Road Rash II on the Mega Drive with my brother and my friends and it was pure arcade action. If I wanted to play GTA or a shooter I'd play GTA or any number of shooters. Road Rash was something special.
Also, damn you you Public Enemy! Made me Nitro right into a hidden cop car again!
So, can I still go to Comixology.com and buy and then download it to my iPad?
Is sale or availability being blocked?
No you can buy it on the web, and you can also get it in iOS. Apple never banned it. The writers "pre banned" and only released it on their site instead of on their site and in the site as they did for the previous 11 releases, assuming Apple would ban it and then took advantage of the free publicity. Apple approved it, so it backfired somewhat.
but another reason to never get an iPhone/iPad
I am the one who decides what I can get on my device NOT CRApple...
Well, Apple had nothing to do with "banning" it, of course. The article is all lies, but given your obvious vehement hatred of Apple, no real loss there.
I used to feel the same.
Then I realized that hype is just that and fanboyism is just a lack of perspective. They don't affect me. The stories, however, occasionally contain little gems. Like this one; I became aware of SAGA :) I will definitely take a closer look at it later.
Mostly I just enjoy the fact that nothing coming out from Apple affects me and watch the whole show as a grand social experiment :)
I guess their marketing strategy worked then.
Apple didn't pull this. The writers of SAGA pulled it in anticipation of it being banned by Apple.
Result: huge shitstorm of publicity on the internet. Apple blamed unfairly, but it's the usual haters so no real damage done there, and a large influx of new readers. Everyone wins!
The "outrage" is misplaced.
Apple didn't pull anything. Still, good publicity for the writers though.
Not sure how you get to "their products are boring" from "I think they are banning something that they aren't", but who knows.
You are missing the central point: This doesn't even require reading TFA, just the summary. Previous issues of Saga had as graphic or more so heterosexual situations. Yet they were not banned, nor have they been banned. Saga 1-11 is still available. So the problem here is that heterosexual and gay are being treated differently.
No, the problem here is that the article is nonsense.
Apple didn't pull the app, the original app publishers "pre pulled" it, thinking that Apple would just pull it anyway (they have not, and it will be up on the store soon).
It is a genius move, since it generates enormous publicity.
And I almost didn't post it, as it's clear in TFA that Apple pulled it from the in-app purchases, but didn't block the app from playing it (allowing it to be bought 3-rd party and sync'd with the app), nor blocked access to the content, as it could be bought from the Apple iBookstore (though I have no idea if content bought through iBookstore can be played on other apps). So if it's easily buyable, but blocked at the same time, what did they do any why? Well, Apple will claim it's not anti-competitive because you can buy it through the 3-rd party web site and sync it with your app. Apple also didn't advertise it was available on iBookstore, they just didn't pull it from there. So in this case Apple may be right, but if Apple is operating under two sets of rules for apps, one for other's and a different one for Apple Apps, that is anti-competitive by definition. Though if that was sufficient to win in court, one of the other affected apps would have complained by now, instead affected companies like Google decided that rather than fight, they would work with Apple.
Pity the TFA is nonsense, though.
Apple didn't pull it.
Developers are legally required to sell on iOS?
No, nor are they legally required to sell on Android. You failed at reading comprehension, because I explicitly stated that I was talking about the requirements of the users. Please try again.
the official Google store has the same financial terms as the iOS store.
Bullshit prevarication. iOS does not have the same functional terms as Android does, because you cannot install apps without the official Apple app store without breaking the law, but you can do so on Android. That is the difference. If you want to sell apps for iOS, then only users willing to break the law are going to buy from you in a venue where you're going to give Apple less than 30%, or as others have pointed out, 33% if you're one of the majority of app developers making less than $3k given the additional $100 fee, to say nothing of the Apple tax. A machine suitable for Android development can be had for $300 or so, how much is a Mac Mini?
The argument is claiming that a 30% cut is excessive. Why is it not excessive for Google just because a developer can choose to "go it alone"?
If you don't see how choice changes the equation, I cannot help you.
I'm aware you were talking about users - I was just using some hyperbole to point out that development on iOS is a choice, not something that a developer is forced into. Your point that Google's store is different because a developer can choose not to sell in it. I'm noting that the same is true of iOS - no one is forcing you to sell on it.
A machine suitable for iOS development can be had for $300 or so too. Why says you have to buy brand new? If the cost of a development machine is a dealbreaker in a business designed to make a living out of mobile software development, perhaps don't give up the day job? Either way, that's irrelevant.
Let's change the argument to two stores in two different towns.
Store A is the only store in FruitTown, and charges a 30% cut for any products it stocks.
Store B is one of two stores in RobotTown, and also charges a 30% cut for any products it stocks. Alternatively, there's a little open air stall on the outskirts of the town that a vendor can use to sell his product if he doesn't want to use Store B and pay the fee.
No, are Store A and Store B's 30% cuts equally excessive? Is Store B's cut now acceptable because you can use the open air market on the outskirts? We'll also assume, for the sake of cutting that argument off at the pass, that Store A and Store B own all the land the respective towns are built on, but that Store B doesn't mind if you put up your own vendor shack on the outskirts. Is its 30% cut should you choose to use its services excessive, or any different to before?
The argument is "Google's 30% cut is ok because you can use other stores". I'm arguing that if it's not excessive for Google, then it's not excessive for Apple, and vice versa
And I'm arguing that you're using specious reasoning for some reason I can't discern, because the situation is clearly different. In the case of Apple, if you want to go to someone who doesn't take 30%, your users have to break the law. In the case of Android, you can distribute directly to the users yourself, and your users don't have to break the law. That's when 30% isn't 30%. In one case it is legally mandatory and in the other case it is not. If you don't see that using the law to enforce your restriction changes the situation, then there's nothing I can do to explain this to you.
Developers are legally required to sell on iOS?
Developing for iOS is a choice, as it is on Android. You have *more* choices on Android, but that doesn't change the fact that the official Google store has the same financial terms as the iOS store. 30% is 30%. Your options should you choose not to use the official store on either platform vary, but the stores themselves work the same way. There's nothing specious about it.
The argument is claiming that a 30% cut is excessive. Why is it not excessive for Google just because a developer can choose to "go it alone"? It doesn't change Google's position - either charging 30% is excessive or it isn't.
Ah, so one rule for Google, one for Apple.
Apple doesn't stop you selling your app in other places either
No, there is one rule, and it is this. If it is illegal to run apps sold in other places on your phone, then you're not actually permitting selling the app in other places. And since that is very much the situation (at least in the USA) the fact is that Android is the superior platform in this case. If you go to install an APK from another source, which is as simple as opening the file, you are prompted to permit installing applications from third party sources. You don't even have that option with an iDevice unless you break the law.
I'm not arguing the "superior" platform, I'm querying the assertion that a 30% cut on Google's store is ok (according to slashdot), but a 30% cut on Apple's store is "extremely excessive" purely because Apple's store (and web apps) are the only non-enterprise/non-hobbiest way to install apps.
The argument is "Google's 30% cut is ok because you can use other stores". I'm arguing that if it's not excessive for Google, then it's not excessive for Apple, and vice versa. Either both are gouging "extremely in excess of their operation costs", or they're both not. Even if the argument is "a developer can choose to sell via alternative means on android", the argument still boils down to whether the costs levied by Google are excessive.
Personally, I think the cut is fine. I don't agree with the cut on in-app content that Apple also levies, but I can see why it exists (easy dodge to give away your app for free and charge to unlock the features to avoid the 30% cut if it's only charged on initial purchases) - it would be better if it were more granular. Overall, however, for the services provided for that cut, developers are getting a pretty good deal, from Apple and from Google.
It's called Google, and as I understand it, they're one of the biggest companies on the planet and they don't charge or take a cut of your website's fees to operate. Their profit margins aren't exactly... tiny.
Stopped reading here. If you can't understand why Google's services are free and where their revenue comes from (and by extension, who their actual customers are), then I can't help you.
The one piece I got to before that was about payment processing. Again, you seem to misunderstand. The cost of doing business for a vendor that handles credit card payments (ie, Apple in this case, acting as a proxy for developers selling apps) is non-zero (I guess the sarcasm passed you by, but I'll let it slide). This is compounded by frequent small transactions which are much more affected by the fee imposed by the card issuer/financial network provider, hence the reason that many brick and mortar stores have a minimum purchase amount on a card. I was merely pointing out that you left that off the cost of doing business. It's rolled into the 30% cut Apple takes. Google does the same thing on their store with their 30% cut, which people seem to think is ok (because it is a good deal for all concerned)
Maybe there was more coherence in the rest of the post, but it doesn't look likely. Sorry.
Sure it is, but the difference here is that nobody needs to sell through Google Play to sell android applications. There are several other android stores and developers can even sell applications at their own web sites, as Humblebundle does, for example. If you don't like their fee you are not forced to sell though them and they cannot prevent you from selling your Apps elsewhere.
Ah, so one rule for Google, one for Apple.
Apple doesn't stop you selling your app in other places either, and you can even release it as a web app on iOS if you so choose (less effective than a dedicated app, but some developers have gone that route - Apple even promoted it themselves during the iOS maps fiasco mentioning that the web version of google maps was available while they waited for Google to submit the native version to the store).
But, just to boil your argument right down, you're saying that Google's 30% is excessive but ok because you can sell via non-official app stores if you like, but Apple's 30% is excessive and not ok because iOS only has web apps and the app store as software sources?
Wow, I can see you simply don't live in the real world, and you accuse Apple users of being affected by the RDF.
I see you left of payment processing and support, but those are zero costs of course. It doesn't cost you anything to support your customers or handle payments.
As to "renting space in a data center", I imagine you know Apple's needs better than them, but they decided to actually *build* data centres of their own. I guess your armchair quarterbacking has analysed their needs perfectly though. You should probably email them and suggest they just rent some space from dropbox (as was suggested seriously in another comment on this).
My point about Apple's financial statements was not that fraud never happens (duh!), but that Apple's filings are public and that it *is* something that can be used against them if they are less than honest. If a large corporation that was involved in a large multi-billion dollar lawsuit with Apple (can you think of any off the top of your head?) had any suspicion that Apple was not playing it level in their filings then the stink would already have been raised. Fraud happens all the time, but that does not mean it is rampant - especially in a company as closely scrutinised as Apple. By all means, if you think they are lying about their filings then do something about it rather than just implying that they are because it fits your expectations and prejudices.
Also, I find it amusing that you consider the $99 annual fee to not only be "hidden" (seriously, wtf?) but that it is somehow crippling. You're focussing on developers who only make $3000 or less, which clearly covers all hobbyists - the clear indication here is that hobbyist developers are actually finding success on the store. The parallel to draw there is not whether they are making a living off that (if iOS development is all you do and you make $3k total then you're doing it wrong) but what they would earn in the absence of the app store. What are the earnings of those same group of sub-3k developers on Android, for example? Or simply those releasing software for any platform via their own distribution method.
Apple's model is the same as Google's - a 30% cut to handle distribution, store presence (not marketing, unless you get featured), payment processing, support, and hosting with nothing but a chunk of cash landing in your account every month to avoid all those hassles. Everyone except slashdot users thinks that is an excellent deal (except when it;s Google when it's somehow also an excellent deal because "freedom!").
I know it doesn't fit the slashdot apple hating brigade, but the app store is a good thing for developers. If you do not like it then you're free to avoid it entirely and go another way - nothing stopping you. The choices are there. Overall a mobile application developer is going to find it an very beneficial market to develop for.
Hosting costs based on a "customer facing site" from dropbox to describe Apple's situation regarding server requirements and bandwidth....
Man, I'm crying with laughter over here. Please, keep going, oh mighty business expert!
30% is far to much, and extremely in excess of any operation costs they may have.
Does that apply to Google's store on Android too then?
Can we have that on the record that if Apple's 30% cut is "extremely in excess of any operation costs they may have" that the 30% Google charges is also "extremely in excess" too?
I've decrypted the Apple EULA. It says this:
"Apple must make the majority of any profit to be had. Developers will be paid only a fraction of what their efforts are worth. Loyalty to the Furo--er, Brand is absolute. Apps which go against our brandalist(tm) propaganda are to be banned with immediate effect using one of the dozen or so vaguely-defined rules outlined below. Ka-Pla!"
But more seriously guys... if you're developing for Apple, prepare to be raped. They don't give a flying fuck through a rolling doughnut about you, the developer. You should feel privileged to develop for the legacy of the Great Man Jobs. How dare you ask for a fair share of the profit! If you want that, go slink off and develop for (spits) that Anderzoid platform or whatever it's called. Apple is the future. Suck it up, cupcake.
Interesting, given that the split on revenue is 70:30 in favour of the developer and for that 30% they handle all of the hosting, distribution, updates, credit card payments and billing etc and just give you the money, greatly simplifying the process of online distribution involving small transactions.
The App Store itself has been an enormous cash cow for developers, large and small alike.
Apple's financial statements tell you exactly how much profit they make on the store (hint: it's extremely low, but it is above zero), and if you think they're lying about that as has been often suggested then file a complaint over fraudulent financial reporting - it's a very serious crime.
Developers, on the other hand, are making hay on the store. I'd be interested to see how you justify Apple making "the majority of any profit to be had" with some actual numbers, or if it's just more rampant, ill-informed Apple bashing as usual.
Medicine and medical research suffers from two problems:
1. Inherent difficulty, both technical (huge diversity and complexity of human physiology) and ethical (can't round up people to experiment on - at least not "in principle").
2. The medical-industrial complex that is the tangled mess of big pharma, academia, and regulators with huge amount of money slushing around.
The combination makes medicine and medical research particularly toxic to conducting good science. You tell me another field that comes even close.
Chemistry is not far off, especially with all the overlap with Med Chem.
Have you ever seen a Thunderbolt port?
I guess not, based on your post. Still, don't let the facts get in the way of a good bash.
You mean this?
Yeah, that's way different than all those other connectors. Not.
Well done, you have noticed that they very deliberately chose to use the MDP connector.
Not sure if this is sarcasm or genuine buffoonery...
If it is a troll, well played sir.
On the other hand, if you believe the MDP port is "almost indistinguishable" (direct quote) from microUSB and/or microHDMI then I think you should probably box up your computer and return it to the store. It will be better for everyone in the long run.
Well my Sony Vaio has an usb compatible thunderbolt port, which only can be used to connect the external video card, and as a regular usb 3.0 port. I think Sony is paying Apple for a license to use the technology. Apple could easily make the thunderbolt port work as an usb port too, but they just don't because they want to sell extra cables.
Again, the misinformation around thunderbolt is hilarious.
Apple DOES NOT OWN the Thunderbolt technology. It belongs to Intel. There is no requirement to make it fit into a USB port, or to only work that way. The official spec calls for the use of the mini displayport connector, which Apple owns the licence to, which it has granted royalty free licencing to anyone who wants to use it. The MDP connector looks nothing like USB.
Sony is not paying Apple anything to use the technology.
Do each of the devices get their own DMA signalling, or are you crippled to only one device being fast at a time? How does context sharing of the pipe sharing work? I imagine that this -could- be a great step in the right direction, but they need a lot more than just a raw fat pipe to make multiple peripherals fast and responsive.
It's basically an external extension of the PCI bus, so works in very much the same way. Instead of slots on the motherboard, it's just rolled into a connector and a cable.
Apple has pissed off all the other CE manufacturers. There will be nothing to plug the other end into.
Without general support great features are worthless. Apple is repeating Sony's mistake with betamax. They won't share, thus it will fail.
Great technology without support is worthless.
How are Apple "not sharing"?
The technology is owned by Intel, and was developed with the assistance of Apple. Apple also licenced (for free, in perpetuity) the mini displayport connector and port that TB uses. Intel have been promoting it since launch.
Not really seeing how this is Apple not sharing, given that it's not Apple who actually controls the technology, but such is the way with /. posts - the barest tissue of lies covering the bare bones of the truth. The exclusivity deal was over more than a year ago.