Oh, right, because only those who have money to pay will make good apps. No flaw in that theory... 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.
The flaws in the theory are all yours. If this student that you are now proposing car really make such a good app, then of course he can make far more than $99 by selling it on the App Store.
And anyone with a salary might just not want to pay 99$ just to share what he does.
What makes you think it's Apple's duty to subsidise people so they don't have to pay for their own hobby? The App Store is not a charity. As it is the $99 is a very low bar for entry. There has to be some bar for entry, or the app reviewers time would be taken up with time wasters. And when I say time wasters, yes, I'm talking about the kind of people you want to encourage. If you're not committed enough to put $99 up front, you're a time waster.
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).
With 500,000 app titles already on the store, why should they care about this hypothetical one? Particularly as it'd be far outnumbered by non-genious 15 year olds fart apps.
Because a very talented google or microsoft emplyee might do a side project that's worth your money?
A Google or Microsoft employee that can't afford $99. Not very convincing.
Your conclusion that hobbyist = crap is ridiculous.
Not always. Some concepts can be expressed using numerous distinct words. If I type a word into a search engine, the results will have those documents that contain the word, not documents that contain synonyms for that word. This phenomenon goes by "synonym problem" and numerous other names.
My word, the barriers to your becoming an iOS developer just go on and on don't they.
Is it considered fallacious to argue a position that affects people other than myself?
If there are such people, why are they so quiet, and why do they need you to speak for them? Is it that the can't afford a PC or internet connection either?
Why would Apple want more hobbyist developers? Why would other developers want more hobbyist developers? Why would iOS users want more hobbyist developers?
I see no downside to stopping a few people who can't afford $99 putting their crap on the App Store.
Do you really think every app that doesn't break the 143 sells... is a crap app?
Yes.
(the majority)
You seem to be adding two and two and getting 22. As I pointed out elsewhere $99+30% is only the tip of the ice-berg of investment in apps. Even the lone developer with design skills is investing a lot of his time. But those who are seriously trying for mass market games for example are investing a lot of money on design assets. Then there's advertising...
Anyone who'd making "a tragic loss" is not talking about $99 dev prog membership.
There's no reason why a programmer can't learn to do his own marketing. It's not hard it just requires some work.
If you don't already know UI and graphics people, then no doubt Google is your friend.
But you've established in previous posts that you can't afford a Mac, so it's rather a hypothetical question. You'll just have to keep on flipping burgers.
The people who make quality apps and aren't a success: their mistake is thinking that they don't need to market it. They think word of mouth will market it for them. Word of mouth is great, but it needs a kick start.
But most apps that fail aren't quality apps. They make the more fundamental mistakes of: 1) Not realising that UI design is a specialism, and that programmers usually aren't good at it. 2) Not realising that they have to hire a graphic artist to design icons and other graphic assets.
I see it more like the record industry when it was 45 singles.
A few songs are hits and a lot are misses. Successes rely on getting in the charts. Getting in the charts relies on being a success. Some successes are because of quality, some are because of novelty. The chart/success Catch 22 is beaten with good marketing. Some singer/songwriters create the whole thing themselves in their bedrooms, some songs are factory produced by a team.
Hey, if it turns out you're unable to make a profit yourself, then those new skills will be excellent for getting you a job programming iOS (or OS X) Apps for someone else.
30% is not at all high. Previous to the Apple App Store, the biggest mobile app store was Handango. And back then they charged 40%. And they didn't offer the easy installation system that Apple does, just payment, and web-download of a zip file or a reg code. And that was still worth it for developers to do, even though they cold do it all from their own web-site of they chose.
Even that was a bargain compared to developers who get shrink-wrapped software in brick-and-mortar stores. With so many levels of cuts being taken, a developer will be getting =5% from the retail price.
Why the hell do you think there are so many developers developing for the Apple App Store? Because they know $99+30% is a good deal. If you think it's not, then you're clearly not a professional developer, because you don't understand the issues.
1) 2007 (2006) is about the switch from PowerPC to X86 processor. That's a one off switch, not one that will happen "every 4 or 5 years".
2) That being said, eventually all developers will want to move on to a new computer because their old one is too slow for recent tools. Whether their development environment is Mac or PC. It's pretty dumb to single Mac out as anything different.
Combine this with a new iPod touch every two years (to depreciate at $150 per year), and we can estimate the total cost of hardware plus certificate at $400 to $500 per year.
Whatever mobile development you develop for you're going to have to buy devices to test on. You're going to have to buy more of them if you're developing for Android as there are far more variants, and the turnover of models is more rapid.
The 99$ tag that you HAVE to pay per year to have your app in the appstore make it extremely hard for anyone to be able to make a profit
Good grief! The only way that charge would stop you making a profit, is if your profit was going to be less than $99 a year. Which would already be a failure, unless you're a schoolkid wanting to buy the occasional candy bar.
It amounts to 143 apps at 99c. Per year. If you can't sell that, then you're wasting everyone's time with your shitty app.
$99 per year isn't any barrier to anyone who is selling an app. It's only a barrier to people that want to do free apps. And of them only the subset who don't have any other financial incentive for the app.
I make a software, host it on github and publicize it on facebook, I won't be loosing anything other than my time...
Which apparently is worth less than $99 per annum.
Meanwhile back in the land of reality, outside school kids bedrooms, real for profit developers consider $99+30% take to be a bargain. Anyone who's actually had any experience of the old ways: credit cards, chargebacks, hosting, programming reg-code systems, issuing reg-codes, reminding people of reg-codes. It's all a bore, and distracts from development. With the App Store, once you've sent it to Apple and got it approved, you just wait for the money to come in. And fix any bugs that come along.
Final point: If you're taking it seriously, $99 will be far less than you pay for a designer for an icon and other app and website graphic assets.
You can play ALAC in Windows iTunes and you can play it in VLC. So you can play them on pretty much any PC.
And of course you don't have to listen to iOS devices via headphones. There are line out signals in the dock connector. Dock an iPod into a docking station attached to a Hi-Fi.
FLAC is useless for all those people that do have an iPod. And that's a lot.
Finally, now that ALAC is open source, it'll be integrated into most digital audio products in future. FLAC on the other hand will never be integrated into Apple products.
FLAC never really caught on as a format. Now it's completely doomed.
If that was so, they wouldn't be very good dictionaries. WordNet is an odd creation, halfway to thesaurus, Moby obviously IS a thesaurus. And thesaurus list words that can sometimes be substituted in sentances depending on context. They don't guarantee that such words are the same. The American Heritage Dictionary lists each as synonyms, but also provides different definitions for each.
The standard reference work this side of the pond is the Oxford English Dictionary:
fashion Pronunciation:/ËfaÊf(É(TM))n/ noun 1 a popular or the latest style of clothing, hair, decoration, or behaviour: the latest Parisian fashions...
style Pronunciation:/stÊOEÉl/ noun... 2 a distinctive appearance, typically determined by the principles according to which something is designed: the pillars are no exception to the general style a particular design of clothing: his shoes were in a style that he could wear anywhere a way of arranging the hair: for a glamorous style, hair was brushed out after setting 3 [mass noun] elegance and sophistication: a sophisticated nightspot with style and taste http://oxforddictionaries.com/
I'm sorry if you didn't realise there's a difference between fashion and style. But there is. And the distinction is vital for discussing phrases like "form over function" and "style over substance".
Nope. I'm a developer. And comments like that would just offend and be ignored in favour of more reasoned critiques.
The fact that so many people are excusing this confirms to me my suspicion that this sort of behaviour is widespread in the Linux "community". And it makes me glad I'm not part of it.
Funnily enough when people pay for software they have more respect for it and the developers.
That's true. For the first year the iPhone didn't qualify as a smartphone. And Apple were careful not to call it one. For example they set a target of capturing 1% of the phone market, rather than say 5% of the smartphone market. IIRC they slipped up in just one press release, where they mentioned the smartphone market. But they never called iPhone a smartphone in that period.
iPhone because a smartphone with the release of iPhoneOS 2.0. All those original iPhones could be upgraded. And that was a couple of months before Android came out.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah. What's needed is for hobbyists to work for free to develop free solutions so that these poor enterprises don't have to pay for their IT needs.
Are you deliberately being obtuse? He's talking about apps.
Then he's still wrong.
They jumped it some time ago. Itunes making you have to go through Apple to do *anything* is not just a walled garden
What do enterprises need iTunes for?
And what's wrong with iTunes for small businesses?
Oh, right, because only those who have money to pay will make good apps. No flaw in that theory...
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.
The flaws in the theory are all yours. If this student that you are now proposing car really make such a good app, then of course he can make far more than $99 by selling it on the App Store.
And anyone with a salary might just not want to pay 99$ just to share what he does.
What makes you think it's Apple's duty to subsidise people so they don't have to pay for their own hobby? The App Store is not a charity. As it is the $99 is a very low bar for entry. There has to be some bar for entry, or the app reviewers time would be taken up with time wasters. And when I say time wasters, yes, I'm talking about the kind of people you want to encourage. If you're not committed enough to put $99 up front, you're a time waster.
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).
With 500,000 app titles already on the store, why should they care about this hypothetical one? Particularly as it'd be far outnumbered by non-genious 15 year olds fart apps.
Because a very talented google or microsoft emplyee might do a side project that's worth your money?
A Google or Microsoft employee that can't afford $99. Not very convincing.
Your conclusion that hobbyist = crap is ridiculous.
It's realistic.
Not always. Some concepts can be expressed using numerous distinct words. If I type a word into a search engine, the results will have those documents that contain the word, not documents that contain synonyms for that word. This phenomenon goes by "synonym problem" and numerous other names.
My word, the barriers to your becoming an iOS developer just go on and on don't they.
Is it considered fallacious to argue a position that affects people other than myself?
If there are such people, why are they so quiet, and why do they need you to speak for them? Is it that the can't afford a PC or internet connection either?
Or is is that you're just talking shit?
Why would Apple want more hobbyist developers? Why would other developers want more hobbyist developers? Why would iOS users want more hobbyist developers?
I see no downside to stopping a few people who can't afford $99 putting their crap on the App Store.
Do you really think every app that doesn't break the 143 sells... is a crap app?
Yes.
(the majority)
You seem to be adding two and two and getting 22. As I pointed out elsewhere $99+30% is only the tip of the ice-berg of investment in apps. Even the lone developer with design skills is investing a lot of his time. But those who are seriously trying for mass market games for example are investing a lot of money on design assets. Then there's advertising...
Anyone who'd making "a tragic loss" is not talking about $99 dev prog membership.
There's no reason why a programmer can't learn to do his own marketing. It's not hard it just requires some work.
If you don't already know UI and graphics people, then no doubt Google is your friend.
But you've established in previous posts that you can't afford a Mac, so it's rather a hypothetical question. You'll just have to keep on flipping burgers.
First there was the 68K to PowerPC switch. Then there was the old world ROM to new world ROM switch. Then there was the PowerPC to x86 switch.
68K to Power PC was 1994. New World ROM is irrelevant.
If you're suggesting pattern, it's a 10-12 year one. Don't you change your PC at least that often?
A Mac is more expensive than a Windows PC because Apple has chosen to target midrange and high-end market segments, not low-end.
Developers aren't low end. Well some of the wannabes on Slashdot might be. Perhaps you are. But real developers aren't.
The majority of App Store developers aren't professional.
See also: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2505894&cid=37923792
It's not often I enjoy a troll. But that was a good one! :-)
The people who make quality apps and aren't a success: their mistake is thinking that they don't need to market it. They think word of mouth will market it for them. Word of mouth is great, but it needs a kick start.
But most apps that fail aren't quality apps. They make the more fundamental mistakes of:
1) Not realising that UI design is a specialism, and that programmers usually aren't good at it.
2) Not realising that they have to hire a graphic artist to design icons and other graphic assets.
I see it more like the record industry when it was 45 singles.
A few songs are hits and a lot are misses.
Successes rely on getting in the charts.
Getting in the charts relies on being a success.
Some successes are because of quality, some are because of novelty.
The chart/success Catch 22 is beaten with good marketing.
Some singer/songwriters create the whole thing themselves in their bedrooms, some songs are factory produced by a team.
Hey, if it turns out you're unable to make a profit yourself, then those new skills will be excellent for getting you a job programming iOS (or OS X) Apps for someone else.
30% is not at all high. Previous to the Apple App Store, the biggest mobile app store was Handango. And back then they charged 40%. And they didn't offer the easy installation system that Apple does, just payment, and web-download of a zip file or a reg code. And that was still worth it for developers to do, even though they cold do it all from their own web-site of they chose.
Even that was a bargain compared to developers who get shrink-wrapped software in brick-and-mortar stores. With so many levels of cuts being taken, a developer will be getting =5% from the retail price.
Why the hell do you think there are so many developers developing for the Apple App Store? Because they know $99+30% is a good deal. If you think it's not, then you're clearly not a professional developer, because you don't understand the issues.
1) 2007 (2006) is about the switch from PowerPC to X86 processor. That's a one off switch, not one that will happen "every 4 or 5 years".
2) That being said, eventually all developers will want to move on to a new computer because their old one is too slow for recent tools. Whether their development environment is Mac or PC. It's pretty dumb to single Mac out as anything different.
Combine this with a new iPod touch every two years (to depreciate at $150 per year), and we can estimate the total cost of hardware plus certificate at $400 to $500 per year.
Whatever mobile development you develop for you're going to have to buy devices to test on. You're going to have to buy more of them if you're developing for Android as there are far more variants, and the turnover of models is more rapid.
The 99$ tag that you HAVE to pay per year to have your app in the appstore make it extremely hard for anyone to be able to make a profit
Good grief! The only way that charge would stop you making a profit, is if your profit was going to be less than $99 a year. Which would already be a failure, unless you're a schoolkid wanting to buy the occasional candy bar.
It amounts to 143 apps at 99c. Per year. If you can't sell that, then you're wasting everyone's time with your shitty app.
$99 per year isn't any barrier to anyone who is selling an app. It's only a barrier to people that want to do free apps. And of them only the subset who don't have any other financial incentive for the app.
I make a software, host it on github and publicize it on facebook, I won't be loosing anything other than my time...
Which apparently is worth less than $99 per annum.
Meanwhile back in the land of reality, outside school kids bedrooms, real for profit developers consider $99+30% take to be a bargain. Anyone who's actually had any experience of the old ways: credit cards, chargebacks, hosting, programming reg-code systems, issuing reg-codes, reminding people of reg-codes. It's all a bore, and distracts from development. With the App Store, once you've sent it to Apple and got it approved, you just wait for the money to come in. And fix any bugs that come along.
Final point: If you're taking it seriously, $99 will be far less than you pay for a designer for an icon and other app and website graphic assets.
Meaning that if everything else was the same, except that Assange was the head of something non-contentious, then they wouldn't be pursuing him.
You can play ALAC in Windows iTunes and you can play it in VLC. So you can play them on pretty much any PC.
And of course you don't have to listen to iOS devices via headphones. There are line out signals in the dock connector. Dock an iPod into a docking station attached to a Hi-Fi.
FLAC is useless for all those people that do have an iPod. And that's a lot.
Finally, now that ALAC is open source, it'll be integrated into most digital audio products in future. FLAC on the other hand will never be integrated into Apple products.
FLAC never really caught on as a format. Now it's completely doomed.
Assange has, unfortunately, been very bad for wikileaks.
How very convenient for the powers that be. Almost too convenient.
More spamming Prune?
If that was so, they wouldn't be very good dictionaries. WordNet is an odd creation, halfway to thesaurus, Moby obviously IS a thesaurus. And thesaurus list words that can sometimes be substituted in sentances depending on context. They don't guarantee that such words are the same. The American Heritage Dictionary lists each as synonyms, but also provides different definitions for each.
The standard reference work this side of the pond is the Oxford English Dictionary:
fashion ...
Pronunciation:/ËfaÊf(É(TM))n/
noun
1 a popular or the latest style of clothing, hair, decoration, or behaviour:
the latest Parisian fashions
style ...
Pronunciation:/stÊOEÉl/
noun
2 a distinctive appearance, typically determined by the principles according to which something is designed:
the pillars are no exception to the general style
a particular design of clothing:
his shoes were in a style that he could wear anywhere
a way of arranging the hair:
for a glamorous style, hair was brushed out after setting
3 [mass noun] elegance and sophistication:
a sophisticated nightspot with style and taste
http://oxforddictionaries.com/
I'm sorry if you didn't realise there's a difference between fashion and style. But there is. And the distinction is vital for discussing phrases like "form over function" and "style over substance".
Nope. I'm a developer. And comments like that would just offend and be ignored in favour of more reasoned critiques.
The fact that so many people are excusing this confirms to me my suspicion that this sort of behaviour is widespread in the Linux "community". And it makes me glad I'm not part of it.
Funnily enough when people pay for software they have more respect for it and the developers.
That's true. For the first year the iPhone didn't qualify as a smartphone. And Apple were careful not to call it one. For example they set a target of capturing 1% of the phone market, rather than say 5% of the smartphone market. IIRC they slipped up in just one press release, where they mentioned the smartphone market. But they never called iPhone a smartphone in that period.
iPhone because a smartphone with the release of iPhoneOS 2.0. All those original iPhones could be upgraded. And that was a couple of months before Android came out.