Keep in mind that Apple can do whatever they want with their applications. It's not like Apple is going to block themselves from distributing Xcode via the App Store.
Hell, look at OS X Lion. One of the rules of the App Store is that you can't put up an installer. What does Apple do? They put up an installer for OS X Lion in the App Store. I pointed this out at WWDC and they basically said, "It's our store and we can do what we want."
The day they do, is the day OS X leaves the Unix fold and becomes something else.
And this is bad because...?
How many Macs has Apple sold because it runs Unix underneath? While the geek market is good and cares about such things, it is dwarfed by the non-geek market that doesn't know what Unix is.
Now, that said, the non-geek group tends to ask the geek-group about such things. For example, my Mom has a Mac and, if there are any problems, I can run Terminal and diagnose problems (or ssh in). If those get cut off, I would be less inspired to suggest a Mac for my Mom (considering the nearest Apple Store is 70 miles away).
it's also reviewing every app submission, even the free ones where Apple gets 30% of $0, which is $0. If an app takes as little as 2 hours of labor to review, that's probably most of the $99 gone right there unless Apple has outsourced that job.
I really doubt Apple is paying someone $49.50 an hour to review apps.
But lets break this down. $9.9 million. You could pay 50 people $60,000 a year and have $3.6 million. What the heck, add in health care and other perks and we'll make it an even $4.5 million. We've got reviews down and we're still up $5.4 million. And we haven't even factored in the 30%.
Uh, what? Apple created the situation, yes, but where exactly is Apple complaining about it?
Fair enough. Probably a bad choice of words.
Let me put it this way: Apple creates the situation where they are the sole distributor of applications. Then they say that they have to charge developers $99 a year and they have to take 30% off the top in order to pay for this. Whereas if they let developers distribute their own applications, they wouldn't need all that infrastructure.
Where were you supposed to put a CD into an iPhone, again? Or an iPad?
Probably in that computer that sits on your desk. How did you get all that music off your CDs onto your iPhone?
The only possible alternative to Apple's App Store for iOS would be another online distribution system.
And this is a bad thing...why? As a developer, I could actually choose the best deal for distributing my application. Apple might actually have to compete with someone. That would be a good thing, right? We all seem to think competition is good, isn't it?
If you saw a placed ad in a joke shop you could, if you were so inclined, whip out your iPhone and buy that fart app from the App Store right then and there, in the middle of the real store. You'd probably make more money than you would from a CD, even after accounting for whatever you'd have to pay to place ads in stores, since the developer's cut on selling software on a disc through retail is tiny.
Here's a difference. If I sell through a store, I actually make money. Buying an ad in a store costs me money--assuming I can find someone who's willing to do it to begin with. Remember that retail space is limited. The owner of a store wants to fill that space with something that will make him money. So advertising in a store may end up costing me as much as putting a product in the physical store.
Don't get me wrong--I'm not saying this is a great idea. What if it doesn't sell in stores? What if my packaging costs are higher or distributors want a bigger cut? Heck, maybe I'm wrong about the whole thing and buying software on a CD is just way too 2002. The point is that I can actually try things and see what works and what doesn't. If I feel my app is getting buried in the App Store, I can remove it and try something else. Maybe I can package it with an analog whoopie cushion!
It reminds me of an old history lesson. The people who made the most money off the gold rush weren't the people who went looking for gold. It was the people who sold them the trip to California, who sold them the picks and shovels and tools they would need, the people who sold them the food, etc. etc. etc.
Apps can be coded in your spare time, I agree. But, as I've often said, there's a difference between a "project" and a "product." I have a little app that I wrote for my iPhone that checks the GPS and tells me my approximate address. It was a fun little project. But it's not a product. It's occasionally flaky, the back-end is owned by someone else who might get a bit offended if 100,000 people start banging on his server, and the interface is pretty ugly--I am not an artist.
Now if I wanted to make this "project" into a "product," I'd have to devote more time to trying to find out where it's flaky. I might have to set up a server with the appropriate GPS to Street Address data. I'd probably have to add advertising in order to pay for the bandwidth that I'm serving out. I'd want to pay an artistic type to clean up my graphics and perhaps rethink the UI. And I need an inexpensive way to let the world know that I've done this. Then I have a "product."
Yeah, I can code up an iPhone app. But that doesn't mean I'll necessarily get back the money that I spent on the hosting and graphics and marketing that I had to do.
While I agree, part of the complaint has to do with the "advantages" of the App Store, as sold to developers.
In theory, the beauty of Apple's model is that they do "all the work." They handle the money and distribution which means you have more time to make your app really great without having to worry about a web store, returns, and all that stuff.
Of course, the only promotion that Apple is guaranteed to give you is a few weeks in the "Just Added" section. If you do a really good job, you may get rewarded with some time in the "Staff Favorites." That's it. Everything else is up to you. And, as much as I like to believe that if you build a better mousetrap, the mice will beat a path to your door, letting the world know that you built the better mousetrap is your responsibility. And that's a lot of work that Apple doesn't do for you--probably far more work than running a web store.
They are taking care of the distribution system, payment collection system, and maintaining the "store" (that little "walled garden" many on/. bemoan but users seem to be just fine with), and all the little headaches that come from maintaining all these things. That should be something they provide you for free since you are gracing them with your app to sell. Do you think you could provide all these things for yourself for $99?
You had me...right until the end.
Apple gets $99 for each product in the store, if I remember correctly. But I may be wrong--it's possible. So let's say it $99 for each developer. If Apple has 100,000 developers, that's 9.9 million dollars. Each year.
So it's $99 per year PLUS 30% of each sale. That seems a like a lot of money to run the distribution, payment collection, etc. Especially when you figure that, for the most part, it's piggy-backed on the existing iTunes infrastructure that sells movies, music, so there's revenue from that as well.
As I've said before, my issue with Apple's App Store isn't that it exists--it's that it's the sole way of getting applications to users. There may be other ways to market and deliver applications to people that are better than the App Store.
Consider a fun example: The "Digital Whoopie Cushion" (a/k/a "fart app"). A great place to sell whoopie cushions are in Joke Shops, when you figure that the people who visit joke shops are more inclined to buy your app while they're picking up fake dog poop. You might have better sales if you could actually distribute your Digital Whoopie Cushion via Joke Shops. Y'know, stick a CD next to the check-out stand with your app on it for $2.99.
Of course, Apple won't let you do that. No, it must go through Apple's App Store.
So, basically, Apple creates the situation and then complains that they're in the situation.
I'm not sure that anybody denies that Android is outselling iPhone. The issue is whether that's a fair comparison. It's akin to saying that all Chevrolet vehicles outsell the Toyota Camry. They certainly do, but does that mean anything? If you want to do that comparison, you need to compare Android-based devices against iOS-based devices, including the iPad and the iPod touch.
That said, what's sticking in their craw is that the fanbois have always said that comparison should not be between Apple and Android but between Apple and the individual device makers. But now you see Samsung and HTC selling more than Apple. Inconceivable! There must be some trick going on--yeah! They're talking about shipments, not sales. The numbers comes from analysts, not the companies themselves. It was a bad quarter for Apple because nobody was buying iPhones because they were waiting for the new model! Yeah, that's it. Whew!
I know that, way back when, Apple used an "agent" model for selling it's hardware via CompUSA. So Apple might ship x units to a store, but they retained ownership of the items. It was always a joke because Apple would have the new machines selling for the same price as the previous generation machines for the first few weeks until someone at Apple says, "Hey, what do you want to do with all this inventory sitting in a CompUSA store someplace?"
So the computers in the stores belong to Apple, not CompUSA. In theory, Apple would have a better idea of their inventory because CompUSA reports sales of computers to Apple.
I could easily imagine that Apple continues to do this with their non-Apple channels. So, in theory, Apple knows that the Best Buy in Peoria, IL, sold a MacBook Pro yesterday.
Question 1: Since when was 9.91mm less than 9.3mm?
It's not. I am wrong and you are right. I remember looking at this at one point and seeing it being thinner. It may have been a carrier specific version or something. But I yield--you're right and I am wrong.
Also consider that Morphie Juice Packs are more readily available than replacement batteries for the Samsung Galaxy S 2 and the utility of a removable battery is pretty much negated.
Wait a second. Okay, so we add in the Morphie Juice Pack and we've added 2.5 oz of weight and we're over half-an-inch thick.
The only chances the Galaxy S 2 has of being purchased by Normals is by either tricking them into buying it (I've seen Phone Resellers do this)
I'm intrigued. Where did you see this? Someone came in and said, "I want an iPhone" and the salesperson convinced them that the Galaxy S II was better? Damn those tricky salespeople.
I suppose if I walked into a store and said, "I want a Windows machine" and the salesman said, "No, you should get a Mac" that'd he'd be an honest person...
Remember how Apple told everybody that the reason they don't have a replaceable battery is because it's impossible to make a thin phone with a replaceable battery? The Samsung Galaxy S II is thinner than the iPhone and it has a replaceable battery!
I can see Jony Ive standing there saying, "Inconceivable!"
But seriously, none of them present a threat as long as parents take care of their children and actually go with them.
Yes. Because there is no way children should be out and about on their own. Mommy and/or Daddy should always be present to watch over their little bundles of joy and protect them in the 1:1,000,000 chance that something were to happen to them.
Or, Mommy & Daddy can give the kids a flashlight and some bright-colored clothing and maybe a few tips and let them go out by themselves to the other houses in the neighborhood. I'd bet that they'll return safe and sound in an hour or so with a bag of candy and a belief that maybe they can actually accomplish things on their own without Mommy & Daddy.
They are not child molestors, rapists, or anything like that. Most are just people who took a discrete leak in public and someone happened upon them or other nonsense like that.
Citation?
I hear this all the time (and tend to agree with it), but I'd be curious if there was an actual study that showed the crimes committed by people on the list along with percentages.
True. On the other hand, how many farts would it take to stink up all of New York City.
(Yes, I can see the jokes coming.)
One Geothermal plant may not make a difference. But if it will take, say, 10,000 of these to make up for the energy from using oil, coal, etc, that might make a difference. To use the prerequisite car analogy, one car does not have any appreciable effect on the environment. Several billion cars do.
Don't get me wrong--I tend to agree that the effect is negligible (even with thousands of them). But those sorts of calculations probably should be done (and probably have.)
Slashdot Mirror
...but now it's in pieces.
I just checked a quick app on my iphone and it said you were still alive.
Damn. They should get one of these for Abe Vigoda.
Oh, it's just a harmless little squirrel, isn't it? Well, it's always the same. But do they listen to me?
Those dinosaurs better not risk a frontal assault. That squirrel's dynamite!
(ref)
Charge your phone more frequently for a couple of weeks while Apple looks into the issue.
And when your battery dies from being charged too often and you need a new one, pay Apple to replace it!
Cha-Ching!
Keep in mind that Apple can do whatever they want with their applications. It's not like Apple is going to block themselves from distributing Xcode via the App Store.
Hell, look at OS X Lion. One of the rules of the App Store is that you can't put up an installer. What does Apple do? They put up an installer for OS X Lion in the App Store. I pointed this out at WWDC and they basically said, "It's our store and we can do what we want."
The day they do, is the day OS X leaves the Unix fold and becomes something else.
And this is bad because...?
How many Macs has Apple sold because it runs Unix underneath? While the geek market is good and cares about such things, it is dwarfed by the non-geek market that doesn't know what Unix is.
Now, that said, the non-geek group tends to ask the geek-group about such things. For example, my Mom has a Mac and, if there are any problems, I can run Terminal and diagnose problems (or ssh in). If those get cut off, I would be less inspired to suggest a Mac for my Mom (considering the nearest Apple Store is 70 miles away).
it's also reviewing every app submission, even the free ones where Apple gets 30% of $0, which is $0. If an app takes as little as 2 hours of labor to review, that's probably most of the $99 gone right there unless Apple has outsourced that job.
I really doubt Apple is paying someone $49.50 an hour to review apps.
But lets break this down. $9.9 million. You could pay 50 people $60,000 a year and have $3.6 million. What the heck, add in health care and other perks and we'll make it an even $4.5 million. We've got reviews down and we're still up $5.4 million. And we haven't even factored in the 30%.
Uh, what? Apple created the situation, yes, but where exactly is Apple complaining about it?
Fair enough. Probably a bad choice of words.
Let me put it this way: Apple creates the situation where they are the sole distributor of applications. Then they say that they have to charge developers $99 a year and they have to take 30% off the top in order to pay for this. Whereas if they let developers distribute their own applications, they wouldn't need all that infrastructure.
Where were you supposed to put a CD into an iPhone, again? Or an iPad?
Probably in that computer that sits on your desk. How did you get all that music off your CDs onto your iPhone?
The only possible alternative to Apple's App Store for iOS would be another online distribution system.
And this is a bad thing...why? As a developer, I could actually choose the best deal for distributing my application. Apple might actually have to compete with someone. That would be a good thing, right? We all seem to think competition is good, isn't it?
If you saw a placed ad in a joke shop you could, if you were so inclined, whip out your iPhone and buy that fart app from the App Store right then and there, in the middle of the real store. You'd probably make more money than you would from a CD, even after accounting for whatever you'd have to pay to place ads in stores, since the developer's cut on selling software on a disc through retail is tiny.
Here's a difference. If I sell through a store, I actually make money. Buying an ad in a store costs me money--assuming I can find someone who's willing to do it to begin with. Remember that retail space is limited. The owner of a store wants to fill that space with something that will make him money. So advertising in a store may end up costing me as much as putting a product in the physical store.
Don't get me wrong--I'm not saying this is a great idea. What if it doesn't sell in stores? What if my packaging costs are higher or distributors want a bigger cut? Heck, maybe I'm wrong about the whole thing and buying software on a CD is just way too 2002. The point is that I can actually try things and see what works and what doesn't. If I feel my app is getting buried in the App Store, I can remove it and try something else. Maybe I can package it with an analog whoopie cushion!
It reminds me of an old history lesson. The people who made the most money off the gold rush weren't the people who went looking for gold. It was the people who sold them the trip to California, who sold them the picks and shovels and tools they would need, the people who sold them the food, etc. etc. etc.
That can depend on what you're trying to do.
Apps can be coded in your spare time, I agree. But, as I've often said, there's a difference between a "project" and a "product." I have a little app that I wrote for my iPhone that checks the GPS and tells me my approximate address. It was a fun little project. But it's not a product. It's occasionally flaky, the back-end is owned by someone else who might get a bit offended if 100,000 people start banging on his server, and the interface is pretty ugly--I am not an artist.
Now if I wanted to make this "project" into a "product," I'd have to devote more time to trying to find out where it's flaky. I might have to set up a server with the appropriate GPS to Street Address data. I'd probably have to add advertising in order to pay for the bandwidth that I'm serving out. I'd want to pay an artistic type to clean up my graphics and perhaps rethink the UI. And I need an inexpensive way to let the world know that I've done this. Then I have a "product."
Yeah, I can code up an iPhone app. But that doesn't mean I'll necessarily get back the money that I spent on the hosting and graphics and marketing that I had to do.
While I agree, part of the complaint has to do with the "advantages" of the App Store, as sold to developers.
In theory, the beauty of Apple's model is that they do "all the work." They handle the money and distribution which means you have more time to make your app really great without having to worry about a web store, returns, and all that stuff.
Of course, the only promotion that Apple is guaranteed to give you is a few weeks in the "Just Added" section. If you do a really good job, you may get rewarded with some time in the "Staff Favorites." That's it. Everything else is up to you. And, as much as I like to believe that if you build a better mousetrap, the mice will beat a path to your door, letting the world know that you built the better mousetrap is your responsibility. And that's a lot of work that Apple doesn't do for you--probably far more work than running a web store.
They are taking care of the distribution system, payment collection system, and maintaining the "store" (that little "walled garden" many on /. bemoan but users seem to be just fine with), and all the little headaches that come from maintaining all these things. That should be something they provide you for free since you are gracing them with your app to sell. Do you think you could provide all these things for yourself for $99?
You had me...right until the end.
Apple gets $99 for each product in the store, if I remember correctly. But I may be wrong--it's possible. So let's say it $99 for each developer. If Apple has 100,000 developers, that's 9.9 million dollars. Each year.
So it's $99 per year PLUS 30% of each sale. That seems a like a lot of money to run the distribution, payment collection, etc. Especially when you figure that, for the most part, it's piggy-backed on the existing iTunes infrastructure that sells movies, music, so there's revenue from that as well.
As I've said before, my issue with Apple's App Store isn't that it exists--it's that it's the sole way of getting applications to users. There may be other ways to market and deliver applications to people that are better than the App Store.
Consider a fun example: The "Digital Whoopie Cushion" (a/k/a "fart app"). A great place to sell whoopie cushions are in Joke Shops, when you figure that the people who visit joke shops are more inclined to buy your app while they're picking up fake dog poop. You might have better sales if you could actually distribute your Digital Whoopie Cushion via Joke Shops. Y'know, stick a CD next to the check-out stand with your app on it for $2.99.
Of course, Apple won't let you do that. No, it must go through Apple's App Store.
So, basically, Apple creates the situation and then complains that they're in the situation.
I'm not sure that anybody denies that Android is outselling iPhone. The issue is whether that's a fair comparison. It's akin to saying that all Chevrolet vehicles outsell the Toyota Camry. They certainly do, but does that mean anything? If you want to do that comparison, you need to compare Android-based devices against iOS-based devices, including the iPad and the iPod touch.
That said, what's sticking in their craw is that the fanbois have always said that comparison should not be between Apple and Android but between Apple and the individual device makers. But now you see Samsung and HTC selling more than Apple. Inconceivable! There must be some trick going on--yeah! They're talking about shipments, not sales. The numbers comes from analysts, not the companies themselves. It was a bad quarter for Apple because nobody was buying iPhones because they were waiting for the new model! Yeah, that's it. Whew!
I wonder about this...
I know that, way back when, Apple used an "agent" model for selling it's hardware via CompUSA. So Apple might ship x units to a store, but they retained ownership of the items. It was always a joke because Apple would have the new machines selling for the same price as the previous generation machines for the first few weeks until someone at Apple says, "Hey, what do you want to do with all this inventory sitting in a CompUSA store someplace?"
So the computers in the stores belong to Apple, not CompUSA. In theory, Apple would have a better idea of their inventory because CompUSA reports sales of computers to Apple.
I could easily imagine that Apple continues to do this with their non-Apple channels. So, in theory, Apple knows that the Best Buy in Peoria, IL, sold a MacBook Pro yesterday.
Question 1: Since when was 9.91mm less than 9.3mm?
It's not. I am wrong and you are right. I remember looking at this at one point and seeing it being thinner. It may have been a carrier specific version or something. But I yield--you're right and I am wrong.
Also consider that Morphie Juice Packs are more readily available than replacement batteries for the Samsung Galaxy S 2 and the utility of a removable battery is pretty much negated.
Wait a second. Okay, so we add in the Morphie Juice Pack and we've added 2.5 oz of weight and we're over half-an-inch thick.
The only chances the Galaxy S 2 has of being purchased by Normals is by either tricking them into buying it (I've seen Phone Resellers do this)
I'm intrigued. Where did you see this? Someone came in and said, "I want an iPhone" and the salesperson convinced them that the Galaxy S II was better? Damn those tricky salespeople.
I suppose if I walked into a store and said, "I want a Windows machine" and the salesman said, "No, you should get a Mac" that'd he'd be an honest person...
the last quarter was expected to dip due to anticipation of many wanting to purchase the new model.
No it wasn't. Nice try, though.
Really? According to analysts, iPhone sales were still strong before the launch.
Try again.
Apple could release a cheap model to get more sales but I don't think they ever will.
You mean like the previous iPhone 4 or iPhone 3GS?
Dance, Fanboi! Dance!
But, wait, weren't all the fanbois talking about how strong iPhone 4 sales were before the iPhone 4S was announced?
Kinda tough to now say, "Well, everybody was waiting for the iPhone 4S..."
The replaceable battery thing makes me chuckle.
Remember how Apple told everybody that the reason they don't have a replaceable battery is because it's impossible to make a thin phone with a replaceable battery? The Samsung Galaxy S II is thinner than the iPhone and it has a replaceable battery!
I can see Jony Ive standing there saying, "Inconceivable!"
Yeah, it's a pretty big jump from Apple released the source to a 10 year-old codec to "Apple's gonna open source iOS!"
And considering Steve Jobs' whole "Android steals from Apple" rant, I doubt you'll ever even see Darwin for ARM.
But seriously, none of them present a threat as long as parents take care of their children and actually go with them.
Yes. Because there is no way children should be out and about on their own. Mommy and/or Daddy should always be present to watch over their little bundles of joy and protect them in the 1:1,000,000 chance that something were to happen to them.
Or, Mommy & Daddy can give the kids a flashlight and some bright-colored clothing and maybe a few tips and let them go out by themselves to the other houses in the neighborhood. I'd bet that they'll return safe and sound in an hour or so with a bag of candy and a belief that maybe they can actually accomplish things on their own without Mommy & Daddy.
Or you can buy this app instead.
They are not child molestors, rapists, or anything like that. Most are just people who took a discrete leak in public and someone happened upon them or other nonsense like that.
Citation?
I hear this all the time (and tend to agree with it), but I'd be curious if there was an actual study that showed the crimes committed by people on the list along with percentages.
Where will we get our iPhone 5 rumors now?!
True. On the other hand, how many farts would it take to stink up all of New York City.
(Yes, I can see the jokes coming.)
One Geothermal plant may not make a difference. But if it will take, say, 10,000 of these to make up for the energy from using oil, coal, etc, that might make a difference. To use the prerequisite car analogy, one car does not have any appreciable effect on the environment. Several billion cars do.
Don't get me wrong--I tend to agree that the effect is negligible (even with thousands of them). But those sorts of calculations probably should be done (and probably have.)
I guess that explains this guy, too.