PDA

View Full Version : Apple Cracking Down on Sites Selling Access to iOS 6 Developer Betas




MacRumors
Jul 8, 2012, 07:33 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/07/08/apple-cracking-down-on-sites-selling-access-to-ios-6-developer-betas/)


Late last month, Wired covered (http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/06/opinion-baio-ios-activatio/) the emergence of a cottage industry of businesses selling access to iOS developer betas prior to their official launch. Apple offers these developer betas to registered iOS developers. The fee for such a registration is $99/year. Some enterprising individuals have turned around and started selling their 100 possible device slots to users looking to install the iOS betas prior to their official launch.Behind the scenes, each service uses the same simple backdoor: Registered iOS developers can activate up to 100 unique device IDs (or UDIDs) for their account, an essential tool for testing apps on multiple devices. Once registered with Apple, the activated device is also able to run pre-release versions of iOS, though developers are forbidden from sharing pre-release software outside their own team.

Ignoring these warnings, activation services charge a small fee to add a customer's device to their developer accounts. When they hit the 100-device limit, they just register a new account with Apple.This has been going on for a couple of years with no particular intervention from Apple. As Wired notes, it seems Apple just didn't seem to care, despite their wide availability.

http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2012/07/ios6.jpg


That may have changed since the publication of the Wired article. MacStories (http://www.macstories.net/news/apple-cracking-down-on-sites-selling-access-to-ios-betas/) has noted that many of the services listed in the original Wired article are no longer available. After reaching out to the sites, it seems that Apple has started taking action against these services. While most of our emails bounced, we heard back from one of the site owners (who asked to remain anonymous), who confirmed his hosting provider took down the site after a complaint for copyright infringement by Apple. Similarly, the CEO of Fused tweeted in a reply to Andy Baio that Apple had been "fairly heavy-handed" with DMCA requests to UDID-selling sites hosted on their network.MacStories exchanged emails (http://www.macstories.net/news/apple-cracking-down-on-sites-selling-access-to-ios-betas/) with the owner of one of the services which made $75,000 since the release of the iOS 6 Beta in June.

Article Link: Apple Cracking Down on Sites Selling Access to iOS 6 Developer Betas (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/07/08/apple-cracking-down-on-sites-selling-access-to-ios-6-developer-betas/)



Reach9
Jul 8, 2012, 07:35 PM
But i thought this was the most underwhelming upgrade and nobody liked it? :rolleyes:

It's about time they did this, too many people who don't have any idea what they're doing are getting their hands on Dev. Previews.

Sabenth
Jul 8, 2012, 07:36 PM
dont bite the hand that feeds you springs to mind

gregwyattjr
Jul 8, 2012, 07:38 PM
I wonder how much they charged to be added to their 100 device limit. Certainly not more than $100...

arn
Jul 8, 2012, 07:39 PM
I wonder how much they charged to be added to their 100 device limit. Certainly not more than $100...

Less than $10 per device is what Wired article said.

One site is selling it for $8.99 right now.

So figure $8.99 * 100 = $899 - $99 = $800 profit per apple dev registration.

arn

yetanotherdave
Jul 8, 2012, 07:41 PM
I wonder how much they charged to be added to their 100 device limit. Certainly not more than $100...

$7-$10 seemed to be about the norm.
At $7 you are making $700 of each dev account, minus $99 fee for $601 profit per dev account.

dbyway
Jul 8, 2012, 07:42 PM
Why do we even need 100 slots? I'm using a total of 2. Large development companies might need about 20-50 tops for testing apps on the new OS.

jdkelly40
Jul 8, 2012, 07:44 PM
Well what does Apple expect, they promise a Fall launch date... and it's Summer. Get with the program Apple!

b166er
Jul 8, 2012, 07:45 PM
I too always wondered why they don't just cut back on how many slots they hand out. Or maybe offer different tiers. An independent developer only needs a few.

kokhean
Jul 8, 2012, 07:53 PM
People would have gotten the developer accounts if the price isn't such a ripoff.

gmanist1000
Jul 8, 2012, 07:54 PM
This is good news! Less people complaining about how their device doesn't work properly when they are using beta software.

b166er
Jul 8, 2012, 07:55 PM
People would have gotten the developer accounts if the price aren't such a ripoff.

they are a business investment if you're an actual developer.

unlinked
Jul 8, 2012, 07:55 PM
Finally Apple uses the law to do something I agree with.

Technarchy
Jul 8, 2012, 08:02 PM
This is good news! Less people complaining about how their device doesn't work properly when they are using beta software.

All you need do is read the iOS6 section, and its obvious people are using beta as their casual daily driver, not as a development tool

damson34
Jul 8, 2012, 08:11 PM
The last two ios6 betas have not even checked udid, perhaps thats why they are going after them since you dont have to pay to activate your udid

gmanist1000
Jul 8, 2012, 08:14 PM
All you need do is read the iOS6 section, and its obvious people are using beta as their casual daily driver, not as a development tool

Yeah I know haha, that's one of the main sections of the forum I read.

AriX
Jul 8, 2012, 08:17 PM
What? This isn't a change in attitude. See http://www.karthikk.net/2011/08/apple-disabling-ios-5-devices-who-purchased-udids-from-other-devs/, etc.

Steve.P.JobsFan
Jul 8, 2012, 08:21 PM
I'm not a software pirate, but I checked out *****. Sure enough, they got wiped out by Apple's DMCA complaints....

writingdevil
Jul 8, 2012, 08:24 PM
Well what does Apple expect, they promise a Fall launch date... and it's Summer. Get with the program Apple!


Get with the program and do what?

----------

People would have gotten the developer accounts if the price isn't such a ripoff.

In all seriousness, what is a ripoff? A $99 fee to develop products in a ready made market? Or is it something else?

noteple
Jul 8, 2012, 08:26 PM
Might be fitting to let them stay on 6.0 beta 2, maybe not. :rolleyes:

faroZ06
Jul 8, 2012, 08:30 PM
People would have gotten the developer accounts if the price isn't such a ripoff.

^This.

----------


In all seriousness, what is a ripoff? A $99 fee to develop products in a ready made market? Or is it something else?

Plus a commission for everything you sell. You shouldn't have to pay to get iOS 6 beta since it doesn't even make you any money.

b166er
Jul 8, 2012, 08:35 PM
You shouldn't have to pay to get iOS 6 beta since it doesn't even make you any money.

Having your app polished and ready to go the second iOS 6 is publicly available just might make you some money if you have a worthy app to sell.

deannnnn
Jul 8, 2012, 08:45 PM
Plus a commission for everything you sell. You shouldn't have to pay to get iOS 6 beta since it doesn't even make you any money.

But if it was free then there would be even more people who load up beta software on their phones and then complain when it doesn't work right.

koolmagicguy
Jul 8, 2012, 08:48 PM
I don't agree with people raking in the money from this, but without sharing I wouldn't be running iOS 6 right now. It's not hurting Apple because I'm not making money from it and I'll get the full release in the fall.

moabal
Jul 8, 2012, 08:51 PM
This is crazy! Apple should be really worried about people running iOS 6 without UDID Registration. My friend who doesn't sell slots gave a few to his friends for free. Apple banned his account accusing him of selling. Apple is just banning people left and right... it seems like to me they cannot tell.

Alameda
Jul 8, 2012, 09:01 PM
Why do we even need 100 slots? I'm using a total of 2. Large development companies might need about 20-50 tops for testing apps on the new OS.Because a good developer will test his product with all of the hardware platform variants of iPad and iPhone, not just one.

Dr-AL
Jul 8, 2012, 09:01 PM
This is crazy! Apple should be really worried about people running iOS 6 without UDID Registration. My friend who doesn't sell slots gave a few to his friends for free. Apple banned his account accusing him of selling. Apple is just banning people left and right... it seems like to me they cannot tell.

Apple can tell who doesn't have apps, or who hasn't submitted apps. Combine that with the rate of which UDID's are being added and it can be pretty easy and effective way to flag accounts.

I'm all for this, and think Apple should have started doing it sooner. They added the warning a while back but just haven't seemingly be active in it.

Since it is rather easy to restore back to iOS 5.1.1 part of me hopes that devices get bricked, or they have issue upgrading to beta 3 when it comes out, so that devices get bricked with the beta 2 expires.

genovelle
Jul 8, 2012, 09:02 PM
Finally Apple uses the law to do something I agree with.

If it was not within their rights under law to do the other things you don't agree with then they wouldn't be able to do them. Thats why there are laws.

faroZ06
Jul 8, 2012, 09:05 PM
But if it was free then there would be even more people who load up beta software on their phones and then complain when it doesn't work right.

I think people who know how to get it on there know what a beta is.

dashiel
Jul 8, 2012, 09:09 PM
^This.

----------



Plus a commission for everything you sell. You shouldn't have to pay to get iOS 6 beta since it doesn't even make you any money.

Hosting, bandwidth, credit card processing, 300 million customers and in some cases advertising the 30% is by far the least egregious requirement/restriction of the app store. $99 is probably too cheap to be honest, there are far too many people trolling the developer forums with lazy questions (like why can't doesn't passbook work on my iPad?) as for your assertion the beta doesn't make you money - I just pitched a project to a client based largely around iOS 6 features and demoed on a device running iOS 6 that resulted in an initial $75,000 contract.

kdarling
Jul 8, 2012, 09:12 PM
Finally Apple uses the law to do something I agree with.

This has nothing to do with any law.

In all seriousness, what is a ripoff? A $99 fee to develop products in a ready made market? Or is it something else?

It's not $99. It's $99 a year. Otherwise your apps stop being available. Over five years, that's some serious change for many young developers and/or hobbyists who just wanted to make some family apps.

Android charges nothing to be a developer, with a one-time small fee to be in the Market. RIM only charges a one-time $25 signing fee. Not sure about Windows Phone these days. Anyone?

I too always wondered why they don't just cut back on how many slots they hand out. Or maybe offer different tiers. An independent developer only needs a few.

The first time such slots were made available, thousands of ordinary people joined up to get the beta.

Apple apparently decided to look the other way since they could brag about all "the new developers signing up"... and they've done the same for years.

pmz
Jul 8, 2012, 09:14 PM
This discussion is a great out of context of example of what's wrong this country, and why it maintains almost none of its original values.

Just look at how many people chimed in with "lower the number of device slots" to "solve" this problem.

Not only would it not solve anything, it's just giving something up for nothing.
Translate that to how you pathetic people give up your rights for absolutely nothing in return. it just sickens me to see how many people have the kind of brain that would jump to that decision. Horrific.

Dionte
Jul 8, 2012, 09:14 PM
Funny thing is these people could have installed it for free just by updating instead of restoring their devices. Thanks for the loophole apple. I can spend that $100 bucks on iTunes content instead.

b166er
Jul 8, 2012, 09:27 PM
This discussion is a great out of context of example of what's wrong this country, and why it maintains almost none of its original values.

Just look at how many people chimed in with "lower the number of device slots" to "solve" this problem.

Not only would it not solve anything, it's just giving something up for nothing.
Translate that to how you pathetic people give up your rights for absolutely nothing in return. it just sickens me to see how many people have the kind of brain that would jump to that decision. Horrific.

I don't know if "solve" is the right word- but the point is Apple does not want people using this software yet unless they are using it to develop/update apps. The other point is the average dev truly does not need 100 slots. It simply does not take 100 slots to develop a universal app that runs on each iOS platform. The fact that people are giving away/selling UDID slots demonstrates that 100 is more than enough. No one is giving anything up. They can still develop an app, for the same price, with no impact on testing. Unusual analogy about America aside, I still am not getting why the majority of developers would need 100 slots.

blow45
Jul 8, 2012, 09:32 PM
Apple has become a big bully. :(

They are of course not above downright theft of the ideas of the jb community (see click volume for camera) and of course these little guys can't sue the hell out of them cause they don't have the money. It's when the little guy tries to get by that they bully up against them.

Instead of hunting people down who are anyway beta testing their software for free they might as well focus or restructuring the fees of the app store.

I can't see how a small time developer should pay $500 over five years and sell their app at $1.99 to 500 or so users. That's $500 to apple plus another $300, $800 and it's $700 to the person that actually did all the work with the development.

The app store and the devs fee are not there to sponsor apple's ios and xcode development. God knows they have enough money to pay for their own dev costs. They are supposed to be paying for developing their tools not offload it to the dev community. It's that community that's helping them ship on ios device after the other.

Yeah I know this is kind of ot, but not really if you think about it. Some people that are small time in the app store or even hobbyists cannot be expected to pay $500 over 5 years just to try a few things out, that's like buying a new ipad.

They even had the nerve to claim "job creation" for something like 210,000 developers. That's 20 million to apple's pockets per year without even counting the 30% per app cut. They are the first job creator that get's paid by the employee. :rolleyes:


Apple need to face real competition, really soon, if they don't the way their greed and obscene riches have gone to their heads the consumers and the developers will suffer as they do now.

jpw16
Jul 8, 2012, 09:42 PM
They just stopped posting downloads to the betas. They're still taking registrations for UDIDs.

I'm not a software pirate, but I checked out *****. Sure enough, they got wiped out by Apple's DMCA complaints....

renai-spirit
Jul 8, 2012, 09:43 PM
It's not $99. It's $99 a year. Otherwise your apps stop being available. Over five years, that's some serious change for many young developers and/or hobbyists who just wanted to make some family apps.

$99/year is bugger all, particularly for the services that you get included. Some people like find any excuse to bash Apple.

blow45
Jul 8, 2012, 09:43 PM
Hosting, bandwidth, credit card processing, 300 million customers and in some cases advertising the 30% is by far the least egregious requirement/restriction of the app store. $99 is probably too cheap to be honest
Yeah it's probably too cheap, they should price it a $299, so in three years for an app that faces competition from about oh 100 other similar apps worldwide and sells for $1.99 they should be making close to $900 per developer. Nice little earner really that $90,000 per niche of app for three years WITHOUT even starting to add the 30% cut...:rolleyes:

fprat
Jul 8, 2012, 09:44 PM
Less than $10 per device is what Wired article said.

One site is selling it for $8.99 right now.

So figure $8.99 * 100 = $899 - $99 = $800 profit per apple dev registration.

arn

I am surprised they are able to activate dev accounts that easily to make it worthwhile for just $800 per account.

Don't they go through a manual verification before they activate the account? Maybe not on personal dev accounts.

renai-spirit
Jul 8, 2012, 09:45 PM
I can't see how a small time developer should pay $500 over five years and sell their app at $1.99 to 500 or so users. That's $500 to apple plus another $300, $800 and it's $700 to the person that actually did all the work with the development.

So it's Apple's fault if a dev can't make an app that sells well? How is this small-time developer supposed to live on $1.99 x500 or so sales? Perhaps they should consider a different career.

jonnysods
Jul 8, 2012, 09:54 PM
Man, those guys made some fast money! Here I am paying $99 per year like a sucker.

jdkelly40
Jul 8, 2012, 10:03 PM
[QUOTE=writingdevil;15209422]Get with the program and do what?

----------



Really?:mad: English not your thing? :p The program with releasing updates when they say they're going to be released...

Saladinos
Jul 8, 2012, 10:06 PM
Apple should just open the betas to free developer accounts.

I mean seriously, they announce all the new stuff in the keynote, post the session videos online (telling you all about the new APIs), but don't let you get at the bits?

Sure, it's a beta and not production quality. I'm pretty sure everyone who is installing this knows that and accepts it. They could still require an additional NDA agreement for access.

beg_ne
Jul 8, 2012, 10:10 PM
Apple has become a big bully. :(

They are of course not above downright theft of the ideas of the jb community (see click volume for camera) and of course these little guys can't sue the hell out of them cause they don't have the money. It's when the little guy tries to get by that they bully up against them.


blah blah...


Instead of hunting people down who are anyway beta testing their software for free they might as well focus or restructuring the fees of the app store.


They aren't "hunting down" people who are "beta testing". They are shutting down people who are using developer accounts outside the bounds of the agreement. When you sign up for a developer account you have to agree not to do that kind of thing.


I can't see how a small time developer should pay $500 over five years and sell their app at $1.99 to 500 or so users. That's $500 to apple plus another $300, $800 and it's $700 to the person that actually did all the work with the development.


This example is nonsensical and doesn't really work out in your favor even. In your scenario McDeveloper made enough money to cover their fees plus some profit. It's not Apple's fault if your strawman lacks the talent or skill to create more than one app or sell it to more than 500 people in 5 goddamn years.


The app store and the devs fee are not there to sponsor apple's ios and xcode development. God knows they have enough money to pay for their own dev costs. They are supposed to be paying for developing their tools not offload it to the dev community. It's that community that's helping them ship on ios device after the other.


The fee means a minimum barrier of entry so the wanna-be developer has some incentive to actually complete and ship some kind of app. It also provides some form of paper trail for a developer who might think about creating something nasty.


Yeah I know this is kind of ot, but not really if you think about it. Some people that are small time in the app store or even hobbyists cannot be expected to pay $500 over 5 years just to try a few things out, that's like buying a new ipad.


Cry us a fricken' river. If you want to be a McDeveloper then Android is waiting with open arms.


They even had the nerve to claim "job creation" for something like 210,000 developers. That's 20 million to apple's pockets per year without even counting the 30% per app cut. They are the first job creator that get's paid by the employee. :rolleyes:


It is job creation, it's not Apple's fault if Strawman McDeveloper chooses to do jack with their membership or is unable to release a compelling product.


Apple need to face real competition, really soon, if they don't the way their greed and obscene riches have gone to their heads the consumers and the developers will suffer as they do now.

Sure, whatever. Apple always "needs" to face competition. Don't know why you people always root for this as their competitors always end up being incompetent or sleazy in ways that make Apple look like the paragon of perfection.

Peace
Jul 8, 2012, 10:13 PM
blah blah...



They aren't "hunting down" people who are "beta testing". They are shutting down people who are using developer accounts outside the bounds of the agreement. When you sign up for a developer account you have to agree not to do that kind of thing.



This example is nonsensical and doesn't really work out in your favor even. In your scenario McDeveloper made enough money to cover their fees plus some profit. It's not Apple's fault if your strawman lacks the talent or skill to create more than one app or sell it to more than 500 people in 5 goddamn years.



The fee means a minimum barrier of entry so the wanna-be developer has some incentive to actually complete and ship some kind of app. It also provides some form of paper trail for a developer who might think about creating something nasty.



Cry us a fricken' river. If you want to be a McDeveloper then Android is waiting with open arms.



It is job creation, it's not Apple's fault if Strawman McDeveloper chooses to do jack with their membership or is unable to release a compelling product.



Sure, whatever. Apple always "needs" to face competition. Don't know why you people always root for this as their competitors always end up being incompetent or sleazy in ways that make Apple look like the paragon of perfection.


^^^What he said.

I remember paying over $500 a year.

beg_ne
Jul 8, 2012, 10:14 PM
Apple should just open the betas to free developer accounts.

I mean seriously, they announce all the new stuff in the keynote, post the session videos online (telling you all about the new APIs), but don't let you get at the bits?

Sure, it's a beta and not production quality. I'm pretty sure everyone who is installing this knows that and accepts it. They could still require an additional NDA agreement for access.

If you're serious enough to start working with beta SDK's then you're serious enough to hand over the minuscule $99 to be a big boy developer.

celui
Jul 8, 2012, 10:14 PM
$8.99 * 100 = $899 - $99 = $800


This equation makes my eyes bleed

Slivortal
Jul 8, 2012, 10:15 PM
Apple has become a big bully. :(

They are of course not above downright theft of the ideas of the jb community (see click volume for camera) and of course these little guys can't sue the hell out of them cause they don't have the money. It's when the little guy tries to get by that they bully up against them.

Instead of hunting people down who are anyway beta testing their software for free they might as well focus or restructuring the fees of the app store.

I can't see how a small time developer should pay $500 over five years and sell their app at $1.99 to 500 or so users. That's $500 to apple plus another $300, $800 and it's $700 to the person that actually did all the work with the development.

The app store and the devs fee are not there to sponsor apple's ios and xcode development. God knows they have enough money to pay for their own dev costs. They are supposed to be paying for developing their tools not offload it to the dev community. It's that community that's helping them ship on ios device after the other.

Yeah I know this is kind of ot, but not really if you think about it. Some people that are small time in the app store or even hobbyists cannot be expected to pay $500 over 5 years just to try a few things out, that's like buying a new ipad.

They even had the nerve to claim "job creation" for something like 210,000 developers. That's 20 million to apple's pockets per year without even counting the 30% per app cut. They are the first job creator that get's paid by the employee. :rolleyes:


Apple need to face real competition, really soon, if they don't the way their greed and obscene riches have gone to their heads the consumers and the developers will suffer as they do now.

Actually, your math is wrong. Because the guy making the app had to pay $500 for the rights to simply develop software, and a 30% commission on $1000, he's paying $800 on the $1000 he made - thus, he only made $200, while Apple made $800. Apple makes 4x as much as the developer does.

Seriously, this and the fact that Apple keeps iOS closed-source is exactly why Android is the better development arena. Even if one sells 3x as many apps on the Apple store you still end up making less just due to all the fees. One should not have to pay $100 a year for the right to make Apple money, both on their 30% commission, as well as a more diverse App Store by virtue of which they can sell their products.

Now, I know I'm going to get flamed about how Android is years behind iOS, and how Apple should keep charging $100 because it's free money - the App store seems pretty good, right? That's not my argument. My argument is that Apple shouldn't be making it harder for their developers to develop, and by doing so they are both taking money out of their developers' wallets for no good reason, as well as limiting the potential apps that go into their store.

blueroom
Jul 8, 2012, 10:17 PM
XCode is free and includes an emulator for iOS devices, budding programmers can certainly learn to write and test their code at no cost. They just can't deploy it to actual hardware.

I wonder how many folks complain about Microsoft visual studio ultimate $11,899

Virinprew
Jul 8, 2012, 10:21 PM
Good move. I always saw those Youtube channels selling iOS slot right after iOS beta was out. That is a wrong way of making money.

cypherpunks01
Jul 8, 2012, 10:38 PM
It's a bad move for me. I like β-testing. Unstable versions has many cool features for a long time before the release. Also i'm developer, but not the registered one nor I willing to pay 200$ for mac + ios programs. What shall I do then? Right ó download osx ML from torrents and signup for ios6 at sites that sell it.

pdjudd
Jul 8, 2012, 10:47 PM
I like β-testing.

So do I and lots of people. Appleís beta software is largely not publicly available. Itís private. They provide a very simple method of getting it, but they are providing this for one reason and one reason only - so that developers can test it out. They do not want the public testing it out and that it their choice. You have no rights to and and neither do I (I have a free developer account). You will have to wait until it comes out or pay the fee.

Not everything is open to the public. Some things Apple offers as an open beta. Moat of the time they donít. Heck I have been invited to beta test some things from Apple that were not publicly available. It was a nice privilege that I took advantage of. Apple wants to control the fate of their core assets as much as possible.

beg_ne
Jul 8, 2012, 10:52 PM
It's a bad move for me. I like β-testing. Unstable versions has many cool features for a long time before the release. Also i'm developer, but not the registered one nor I willing to pay 200$ for mac + ios programs. What shall I do then? Right ó download osx ML from torrents and signup for ios6 at sites that sell it.

You claim to be a Beta tester. Exactly how much feedback have your provided Apple on issues in the betas? Exactly how much do you plan to?

Also Apple is more interested in feedback on tools and API's rather than the iOS release. How much feedback do you intend to give as you have neither the OS to install the SDK nor the SDK itself to give feedback on.

twigman08
Jul 8, 2012, 11:05 PM
People would have gotten the developer accounts if the price isn't such a ripoff.


I can tell you're not a developer. You act like Apple is the only one charging a fee to develop on their platform. Let's look at Microsoft and their XNA Platform. It costs $99 to be a developer. You only get access to the indie game section on XBox Live. The section that almost no "normal" person ever finds. They only find the arcade section sometimes but most of the time they just put a disk in and get going. Forget surfing all the options XBox Live has.

$99 to develop for a widely used platform? For a developer that is a pretty good deal actually. Considering it costs thousands to get a license from Microsoft or another console developer to get their console SDK and a license to create games for that console. Even then you need to be a good size company for them to still give you one. It's not like you just fork the money over and it's yours.

I'm glad Apple is cutting down on this. If you're not a developer and not looking to develop an iOS 6 app then your hands should be no where near an iOS Beta. This beta should not even be on a everyday device!

admanimal
Jul 8, 2012, 11:07 PM
Why do we even need 100 slots? I'm using a total of 2. Large development companies might need about 20-50 tops for testing apps on the new OS.

There are at least 6 different devices that a good developer would want to test their (universal) app on: iPhones 3GS/4/4S and all three iPads. A thorough beta test would probably involve at least 10 of each device, and if you have multiple products whose beta testers aren't exactly the same people...well it's pretty easy to hit the limit.

If you follow some small, popular developers on twitter, you will see them complain about dealing with the limit quite regularly. It is especially common around the release of a new device.

twigman08
Jul 8, 2012, 11:09 PM
It's a bad move for me. I like β-testing. Unstable versions has many cool features for a long time before the release. Also i'm developer, but not the registered one nor I willing to pay 200$ for mac + ios programs. What shall I do then? Right ó download osx ML from torrents and signup for ios6 at sites that sell it.

I just don't believe you're a developer. What Apple charges and what you get access too. Why don't you go get an official SDK from Microsoft or Sony to develop a game for their system. That's right you can't...

kdarling
Jul 8, 2012, 11:12 PM
$99/year is bugger all, particularly for the services that you get included.

What services are those, that other developer setups don't provide for much less or even free?

Btw...


Even if your apps are free, you have to pay $100 a year to keep them available. If you fail to pay that yearly fee, all your apps disappear from the App Store. Apple gets lots of publicity and device sales from having lots of free apps. It's not fair for the poor devs to foot the bill for years upon years.


Even if you just want to make an app for yourself or your family or friends, you have to pay $100 a year to keep that app runnable... unless you put it up on the App Store so it can be downloaded permanently. That hardly promotes good apps.

beg_ne
Jul 8, 2012, 11:12 PM
Why do we even need 100 slots? I'm using a total of 2. Large development companies might need about 20-50 tops for testing apps on the new OS.

Even at a small shop you can get to 100 slots with just a handful of apps produced for clients. Most of it wasn't even expanded beta testing, just for various employees in those companies who needed to get an app on their device to test.

In-office test devices + client devices + a handful of outside beta testers + turnover of old devices adds up pretty quick. Especially since you're locked in until the dev account renews once you start adding devices.

beg_ne
Jul 8, 2012, 11:24 PM
Btw...


Even if your apps are free, you have to pay $100 a year to keep them available. If you fail to pay that yearly fee, all your apps disappear from the App Store. That's not fair for you to have to foot the bill over five or ten years.



I guess thats a choice the developer has to make. Perhaps they should consider making some paid apps to offset the cost if they really need to?

Also it's fair because Apple is clear on the terms. They haven't deceived anyone at all.

If a developer doesn't like it they are free to move over to Android.



Even if you just want to make an app for yourself or your family or friends, you have to $100 a year to keep that app runnable... unless you put it up on the App Store so it can be downloaded permanently. That hardly promotes good apps.



Why not a web app? Because, you know, like all things in life web hosting is 100% free too.

If you need access to native API's then i guess the $99 is part of the cost for your totally awesome, completely essential app for you and your closest friends and family.

Chances are everyone will get bored and stop using your app after a week anyway. So it's not like you have to pay for a decades worth of memberships.

cypherpunks01
Jul 8, 2012, 11:27 PM
You claim to be a Beta tester. Exactly how much feedback have your provided Apple on issues in the betas? Exactly how much do you plan to?

Also Apple is more interested in feedback on tools and API's rather than the iOS release. How much feedback do you intend to give as you have neither the OS to install the SDK nor the SDK itself to give feedback on.

I've created about six issues on apple bugtracker for the past ~three month. When I see something bad or not obviously stupid (just like "Share" button response speed in Safari 6) — I report it. What's the problem?

renai-spirit
Jul 8, 2012, 11:29 PM
What services are those, that other developer setups don't provide for much less or even free?

Find out for yourself.

Even if your apps are free, you have to pay $100 a year to keep them available. If you fail to pay that yearly fee, all your apps disappear from the App Store. Apple gets lots of publicity and device sales from having lots of free apps. It's not fair for the poor devs to foot the bill for years upon years.

$99/year is bugger all. Xcode is free.


Even if you just want to make an app for yourself or your family or friends, you have to pay $100 a year to keep that app runnable... unless you put it up on the App Store so it can be downloaded permanently. That hardly promotes good apps.

$99/year is bugger all - even if you just want to do it as a hobby, as I do myself.

Defender2010
Jul 8, 2012, 11:46 PM
I'm not a software pirate, but I checked out *****. Sure enough, they got wiped out by Apple's DMCA complaints....

Hardly wiped out. They just suspended their activations...and they also did this for ios 4 and 5 betas at one point. Cautious? More accurate

linkgx1
Jul 8, 2012, 11:46 PM
Uhh...just finding out about this. Never knew these until now. STREISAND EFFECT!

rdlink
Jul 8, 2012, 11:46 PM
This is crazy! Apple should be really worried about people running iOS 6 without UDID Registration. My friend who doesn't sell slots gave a few to his friends for free. Apple banned his account accusing him of selling. Apple is just banning people left and right... it seems like to me they cannot tell.

Your friend has violated the developer agreement just as much when he gives the slots away as someone who sells them.

iHelios
Jul 8, 2012, 11:53 PM
100 slots seems excessive.

mabhatter
Jul 9, 2012, 12:07 AM
I don't know if "solve" is the right word- but the point is Apple does not want people using this software yet unless they are using it to develop/update apps. The other point is the average dev truly does not need 100 slots. It simply does not take 100 slots to develop a universal app that runs on each iOS platform. The fact that people are giving away/selling UDID slots demonstrates that 100 is more than enough. No one is giving anything up. They can still develop an app, for the same price, with no impact on testing. Unusual analogy about America aside, I still am not getting why the majority of developers would need 100 slots.

The problem is not that Apple is being generous with the 100 accounts. The problem is that so many people just think Apple should TAKE AWAY accounts from developers FOLLOWING THE RULES to punish those that are not.

So Apple grants developers 100 slots... Remember that has to work for large devs too. How about DEVELOPERS be responsible with the contract they signed stating the account was for THEIR USE ONLY.

----------

I think people who know how to get it on there know what a beta is.

Not really. They are the same ones that leave 1-star reviews "this crashed-it sucks" all over the App store. If you read enough reviews you can spot them by their MO. At least Apple weeded out the really dumb ones that used to SAY they were using the beta in reviews.

admanimal
Jul 9, 2012, 12:11 AM
100 slots seems excessive.

...says someone who is obviously not a professional developer.

infowarfare
Jul 9, 2012, 12:20 AM
Well what does Apple expect, they promise a Fall launch date... and it's Summer. Get with the program Apple!

Get with the program and do what?

----------



Really?:mad: English not your thing? :p The program with releasing updates when they say they're going to be released...

I don't know how no one has called you out on this yet; you must be young (which is no excuse actually) and not know your seasons but, yes, during the last WWDC in Spring, Apple promised a Fall launch date, it's Summer now, and Fall is coming up starting September... so again, what exactly is your problem!? Seems Apple is following their program exactly on schedule so far...

As for the rest of you, it's amazing how quickly you forget that when Apple first implemented the iOS developer program, it was a dream come true; free development environment (Xcode) a measly $99 a year fee to ensure you are serious about developing quality apps, and a small 30% cut to Apple who covers ALL the app hosting fees, the transactions, payment systems, etc. Compare that to what was going on at the time with Microsoft ($11,000+ developing environment) plus they took more than half your profits and you STILL had to host your own app and take care of the transactions yourself.

Now of course, all competitors (Microsoft, Android, et al) are mimicking Apple's system and people have the nerve to complain about Apple? There is a reason why the vast (and I mean VAST) majority of developers, with all options before them, STILL choose to develop for iOS... (I'm talking to you kdarling! The king of FUD that you are.)

macingman
Jul 9, 2012, 12:32 AM
This is crazy! Apple should be really worried about people running iOS 6 without UDID Registration. My friend who doesn't sell slots gave a few to his friends for free. Apple banned his account accusing him of selling. Apple is just banning people left and right... it seems like to me they cannot tell.
How is it crazy your friend broke the rules by sharing slots so therefore it is within apples rights to ban him. Also it is impossible to run a beta without UDID registration so apple doesn't have to go after people without registration.

----------

Because a good developer will test his product with all of the hardware platform variants of iPad and iPhone, not just one.

That's what simulator or whatever they call it is for.

----------

This discussion is a great out of context of example of what's wrong this country, and why it maintains almost none of its original values.

Just look at how many people chimed in with "lower the number of device slots" to "solve" this problem.

Not only would it not solve anything, it's just giving something up for nothing.
Translate that to how you pathetic people give up your rights for absolutely nothing in return. it just sickens me to see how many people have the kind of brain that would jump to that decision. Horrific.

Can't tell if serous or trolling.

----------

Apple should just open the betas to free developer accounts.

I mean seriously, they announce all the new stuff in the keynote, post the session videos online (telling you all about the new APIs), but don't let you get at the bits?

Sure, it's a beta and not production quality. I'm pretty sure everyone who is installing this knows that and accepts it. They could still require an additional NDA agreement for access.

Actually most people don't accept it's a beta and not production quality. Have you seen the amount of people comparing in every forum ever that "my app is crashing" or similar.

----------

Actually, your math is wrong. Because the guy making the app had to pay $500 for the rights to simply develop software, and a 30% commission on $1000, he's paying $800 on the $1000 he made - thus, he only made $200, while Apple made $800. Apple makes 4x as much as the developer does.

Seriously, this and the fact that Apple keeps iOS closed-source is exactly why Android is the better development arena. Even if one sells 3x as many apps on the Apple store you still end up making less just due to all the fees. One should not have to pay $100 a year for the right to make Apple money, both on their 30% commission, as well as a more diverse App Store by virtue of which they can sell their products.

Now, I know I'm going to get flamed about how Android is years behind iOS, and how Apple should keep charging $100 because it's free money - the App store seems pretty good, right? That's not my argument. My argument is that Apple shouldn't be making it harder for their developers to develop, and by doing so they are both taking money out of their developers' wallets for no good reason, as well as limiting the potential apps that go into their store.

Take an android app and an iPhone app and put them side by said and see which one looks nicer, works smoother and is faster and that would give you your answer as to why apple charge.

byke
Jul 9, 2012, 12:51 AM
Imagine if apple tried to close down sites like macrumors that offered non developers information about possible new apple products that wasn't meant for non apple developers.

Oh wait, didn't they try that with gizmodo when they lost an apple iPhone 4 .....
And then a year later apple went after another person when they lost an apple iPhone 4s.

Don't get me wrong, I like apple stuff .....
But am questioning the motives for such action.
It's one thing restricting acces to beta software, it's another thing entirely to go after websites for supplying information.

Had apple done it right, then the restrictions should lay on activations alone and not just having X amount of slots. As that is the make or break point, not looking to close down sites because of apples lax security regarding developer accounts.

admanimal
Jul 9, 2012, 12:58 AM
Don't get me wrong, I like apple stuff .....
But am questioning the motives for such action.
It's one thing restricting acces to beta software, it's another thing entirely to go after websites for supplying information.


Huh? These web sites are not just "supplying information," they are blatantly breaking the terms of Apple's developer program which they explicitly agreed to be bound by when they sign up for it. There is no gray area that Apple is exploiting. These people unquestionably knew they were doing something shady and were lucky to get by for so long without Apple shutting them down.

Slivortal
Jul 9, 2012, 01:00 AM
Take an android app and an iPhone app and put them side by said and see which one looks nicer, works smoother and is faster and that would give you your answer as to why apple charge.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying... If we took iOS Angry Birds and had it face off against Android Angry Birds, we would see the same exact app.

Now, it is true that there may be some apps on the Android store that wouldn't get into the iOS store. However, by Apple killing any app that doesn't live up to its standards, they do not keep out only apps that you don't want to see, but also apps that you very well may like (if you gave them a chance).

Also, not every developer makes it big off the first or second attempt. The apps they make won't sell, but they'll still have to pay a couple hundred dollars just to see it hit the light of day.

Apple makes a decent experience for the consumer - by keeping out anything that may offend or not live up to the standards of anyone they ensure all the apps left will be loved by all. Yet this in essence is censorship - and a censorship that can only benefit the consumer, not the developer. And I'm arguing that Apple's platform is not quite as good for the developer - the only thing the developer benefits from is the increased popularity of iOS devices (and spending habits of iOS customers).

GorgonPhone
Jul 9, 2012, 01:18 AM
ios6 is the damn same as ios5 so who cares who is using it early...lol boooo boring

Winni
Jul 9, 2012, 01:50 AM
dont bite the hand that feeds you springs to mind

Just to make this clear, Apple isn't feeding anyone - in fact, Apple is the fat pig that's being fed by the developers and their customers. The real problem here is that said pig has an insatiable hunger.

admanimal
Jul 9, 2012, 01:54 AM
Just to make this clear, Apple isn't feeding anyone - in fact, Apple is the fat pig that's being fed by the developers and their customers. The real problem here is that said pig has an insatiable hunger.

And how exactly is shutting down sites that illegally sell iOS betas hurting either legitimate developers or 99.999% of honest paying customers?

Winni
Jul 9, 2012, 01:57 AM
I can tell you're not a developer. You act like Apple is the only one charging a fee to develop on their platform. Let's look at Microsoft and their XNA Platform. It costs $99 to be a developer. You only get access to the indie game section on XBox Live. The section that almost no "normal" person ever finds. They only find the arcade section sometimes but most of the time they just put a disk in and get going. Forget surfing all the options XBox Live has.

$99 to develop for a widely used platform? For a developer that is a pretty good deal actually. Considering it costs thousands to get a license from Microsoft or another console developer to get their console SDK and a license to create games for that console. Even then you need to be a good size company for them to still give you one. It's not like you just fork the money over and it's yours.

I'm glad Apple is cutting down on this. If you're not a developer and not looking to develop an iOS 6 app then your hands should be no where near an iOS Beta. This beta should not even be on a everyday device!

You realize that you are comparing two entirely different universes, or don't you? No, of course you don't. It's just the only example that you could find to make a lame excuse for Apple.

Besides, devs might want to beta-test their own software on customers devices. Not everybody is lusting for Apple's latest Facebook toy app.

hellodon
Jul 9, 2012, 01:57 AM
It's weird that they're doing this...because for some reason you didn't even need it to put the beta on devices for 6. This was much more of an issue with 5 than with 6.

dljeffery
Jul 9, 2012, 02:24 AM
You shouldn't have to pay to get iOS 6 beta since it doesn't even make you any money.

Think you've got that entirely wrong, on both parts.

If you're a developer, having early access to iOS 6 (or whatever the next OS happens to be at any point) certainly can/should make you money.

And you don't pay for access to the beta... you pay a nominal fee to be part of a developer program with a lot of benefits, including technical support incidents, ability to download all the WWDC videos, ability to put apps on the store (which certainly should make you money). Oh, and also early access to beta OSes, but that is NOT what you are paying your $99 a year for. (Plus, there is no way this represents $99 of profit per developer for Apple.)

I think it's super cool that Apple makes it so easy for anyone to sign up as a developer and get access to all that stuff. And I don't think Apple really cares if you are truly a developer before handing you your benefits. But they certainly should expect that if you make certain legal agreements (which you have to, when you sign up), you will stick to them. Like not handing out NDA protected information or material, whether it's to make money on the side or just to look cool.

daracne
Jul 9, 2012, 02:41 AM
How is it crazy your friend broke the rules by sharing slots so therefore it is within apples rights to ban him. Also it is impossible to run a beta without UDID registration so apple doesn't have to go after people without registration.

----------



That's what simulator or whatever they call it is for.[COLOR="#808080"

You do realize that the simulator is not a substitute for testing on actual device right? It was made for rapid prototyping, primarily of interfaces. Any serious developer will test on every physical device they intend on supporting to see real world performance. The reason behind this is that the simulator runs applications at the speed of your machines processor, utilizing all of its cores. This speed is far faster than even the 3rd generation iPad. Additionally, as it is a simulator and not an emulator, some APIs are not available and do not always function the exact same as those on an actual device.

Fruit Cake
Jul 9, 2012, 02:58 AM
But if it was free then there would be even more people who load up beta software on their phones and then complain when it doesn't work right.

In android community of tinkerers, sure, but iPhone? I don't think so. That's not even apples target demographic.

I Rise You Fall
Jul 9, 2012, 03:17 AM
Apple has become a big bully. :(

They are of course not above downright theft of the ideas of the jb community (see click volume for camera) and of course these little guys can't sue the hell out of them cause they don't have the money. It's when the little guy tries to get by that they bully up against them.

Instead of hunting people down who are anyway beta testing their software for free they might as well focus or restructuring the fees of the app store.

I can't see how a small time developer should pay $500 over five years and sell their app at $1.99 to 500 or so users. That's $500 to apple plus another $300, $800 and it's $700 to the person that actually did all the work with the development.

The app store and the devs fee are not there to sponsor apple's ios and xcode development. God knows they have enough money to pay for their own dev costs. They are supposed to be paying for developing their tools not offload it to the dev community. It's that community that's helping them ship on ios device after the other.

Yeah I know this is kind of ot, but not really if you think about it. Some people that are small time in the app store or even hobbyists cannot be expected to pay $500 over 5 years just to try a few things out, that's like buying a new ipad.

They even had the nerve to claim "job creation" for something like 210,000 developers. That's 20 million to apple's pockets per year without even counting the 30% per app cut. They are the first job creator that get's paid by the employee. :rolleyes:


Apple need to face real competition, really soon, if they don't the way their greed and obscene riches have gone to their heads the consumers and the developers will suffer as they do now.

How is this not trolling?

gwelmarten
Jul 9, 2012, 03:20 AM
I've being wondering when they will do this for the last 2 years. At last!

I Rise You Fall
Jul 9, 2012, 03:20 AM
Just to make this clear, Apple isn't feeding anyone - in fact, Apple is the fat pig that's being fed by the developers and their customers. The real problem here is that said pig has an insatiable hunger.

Common troll. What's that you ask? Well it's a new species emerging just now on this forum.

gwelmarten
Jul 9, 2012, 03:22 AM
This is good news! Less people complaining about how their device doesn't work properly when they are using beta software.

Yeah, there's a reason why it's called 'beta'. People just go and install it for the bragging rights and then wonder why their phone keeps crashing...duh!

----------

Just to make this clear, Apple isn't feeding anyone - in fact, Apple is the fat pig that's being fed by the developers and their customers. The real problem here is that said pig has an insatiable hunger.

An insatiable hunger for creating great products that actually work :)

rmwebs
Jul 9, 2012, 03:29 AM
People would have gotten the developer accounts if the price isn't such a ripoff.

I wouldn't class it as a ripoff. Well worth it IMO. It also stops the appstore filling up with a million plus one crappy iFart apps as those kinds of crappy developers tend not to be able to afford to pay to keep it on there.

8a22a
Jul 9, 2012, 04:11 AM
Your friend has violated the developer agreement just as much when he gives the slots away as someone who sells them.

The agreement is not to share pre-release software though, not registering a UDID device that may possibly be used for testing pre-release software.

bushido
Jul 9, 2012, 04:25 AM
i dont understand why apple only allows signed iDevices to use betas in the first place ... as long as u pay for your app development, what does it matter which devices run the OS beta

making the upgrade possible would bring all those UDID sellers out of business in a second and they'd still make their money with the actual developers

adildacoolset
Jul 9, 2012, 04:31 AM
blah blah...



They aren't "hunting down" people who are "beta testing". They are shutting down people who are using developer accounts outside the bounds of the agreement. When you sign up for a developer account you have to agree not to do that kind of thing.



This example is nonsensical and doesn't really work out in your favor even. In your scenario McDeveloper made enough money to cover their fees plus some profit. It's not Apple's fault if your strawman lacks the talent or skill to create more than one app or sell it to more than 500 people in 5 goddamn years.



The fee means a minimum barrier of entry so the wanna-be developer has some incentive to actually complete and ship some kind of app. It also provides some form of paper trail for a developer who might think about creating something nasty.



Cry us a fricken' river. If you want to be a McDeveloper then Android is waiting with open arms.



It is job creation, it's not Apple's fault if Strawman McDeveloper chooses to do jack with their membership or is unable to release a compelling product.



Sure, whatever. Apple always "needs" to face competition. Don't know why you people always root for this as their competitors always end up being incompetent or sleazy in ways that make Apple look like the paragon of perfection.

McDeveloper.. haha. Bravo, well explained. People blame apple for enforcing rules.

----------

i dont understand why apple only allows signed iDevices to use betas in the first place ... as long as u pay for your app development, what does it matter which devices run the OS beta

Otherwise hackers and stuff will just distribute the ipsw files freely

----------

In this thread, I've seen a huge amount of ignorance

JohnDoe98
Jul 9, 2012, 04:41 AM
There are at least 6 different devices that a good developer would want to test their (universal) app on: iPhones 3GS/4/4S and all three iPads. A thorough beta test would probably involve at least 10 of each device, and if you have multiple products whose beta testers aren't exactly the same people...well it's pretty easy to hit the limit.

If you follow some small, popular developers on twitter, you will see them complain about dealing with the limit quite regularly. It is especially common around the release of a new device.

What about iPods touches and the iPad 2,4?

gnasher729
Jul 9, 2012, 04:42 AM
i dont understand why apple only allows signed iDevices to use betas in the first place ... as long as u pay for your app development, what does it matter which devices run the OS beta

making the upgrade possible would bring all those UDID sellers out of business in a second and they'd still make their money with the actual developers

The developer guidelines clearly say that installing pre-release software is risky; you should never do it on any device that you _need_ to work, and if it completely destroys any data on your device you have no right to complain. Now try to get your clever suggestion past any legal department in any company.


It's a bad move for me. I like β-testing. Unstable versions has many cool features for a long time before the release. Also i'm developer, but not the registered one nor I willing to pay 200$ for mac + ios programs. What shall I do then? Right — download osx ML from torrents and signup for ios6 at sites that sell it.

Apple doesn't want your services as a beta tester. And excuse me, a person who even thinks about downloading software from torrents is _not_ a developer.


This is crazy! Apple should be really worried about people running iOS 6 without UDID Registration. My friend who doesn't sell slots gave a few to his friends for free. Apple banned his account accusing him of selling. Apple is just banning people left and right... it seems like to me they cannot tell.

That's exactly the kind of person that you don't want in a developer program. Apple doesn't know and doesn't care whether he gave these slots to friends for free, or whether he sold them. He should have told his friends that there is a legal agreement that doesn't allow him to do this. And if they pester him after that, then they are not his friends. Did any of them write a letter to Apple telling them that they removed the beta and to reinstate their friend? I bet they didn't.

You see, there is a legal disagreement, but your friend didn't care. There's a legal agreement with Apple that a developer can't read a user's address book and send the contents to his own server. Does the developer care? If not, you have seen on MacRumors what happens when someone finds out, which they will. You don't want that kind of developer.

auero
Jul 9, 2012, 04:43 AM
The point in paying for a developer account is to develop applications and submitting bug reports. It's for testing and prepping your current applications to work properly or use new tools/api's to create even different applications. The iOS 6 beta isn't for fun or to impress your friends.

Instead you have people rushing to download iOS 6 and complaining that it doesn't work right or that it has bugs. It's not intended for prime time use, that's why it's a beta. Those who are complaining that $99 is a rip off have no benefit from buying a developer account besides iOS 6. Apple doesn't need to lower the amount of slots or create differs tiers because you're going to get a flood of people joining who don't belong there in the first place disrupting the dev community. $99 a year is not a bad price for all the tools you get.

Spanky Deluxe
Jul 9, 2012, 04:49 AM
Having recently registered as an iOS developer to start working on some app ideas, I installed my first pre-release software a few weeks ago - i.e. iOS 6. Having used it, I completely understand why it is in Apple's interest to stop your average Joe (even your average more technically inclined Joe) from installing the latest Beta software on their iPhones. For one, features are incomplete (Maps hardly has any areas activated for 3D for example) and for another, it is buggy as hell. Apple does very well with people showing off their devices to others thus increasing the customer base. If you were to show someone a device running iOS 6 beta then it would give them the impression that iOS is clunky, unstable and drains batteries like mad - not the super slick interface that the latest stable release gives.

JohnDoe98
Jul 9, 2012, 04:55 AM
Having recently registered as an iOS developer to start working on some app ideas, I installed my first pre-release software a few weeks ago - i.e. iOS 6. Having used it, I completely understand why it is in Apple's interest to stop your average Joe (even your average more technically inclined Joe) from installing the latest Beta software on their iPhones. For one, features are incomplete (Maps hardly has any areas activated for 3D for example) and for another, it is buggy as hell. Apple does very well with people showing off their devices to others thus increasing the customer base. If you were to show someone a device running iOS 6 beta then it would give them the impression that iOS is clunky, unstable and drains batteries like mad - not the super slick interface that the latest stable release gives.

I don't see what Apple is doing as trying to target the end users in any way. They never seemed to care all that much if some users wanted to run Beta software. This has everything to do with Websites trying to make a quick profit off the developer program. That is all. If Apple really cared about keeping the Developer previews closed you would see far more restrictions imposed in both the iOS and OS X previews. The fact that nothing is happening on OS X, where all the dev previews are free and on all sorts of torrent sites, should make it pretty clear this is only to stop the renegade Grey market of iOS previews.

gnasher729
Jul 9, 2012, 05:02 AM
Having recently registered as an iOS developer to start working on some app ideas, I installed my first pre-release software a few weeks ago - i.e. iOS 6. Having used it, I completely understand why it is in Apple's interest to stop your average Joe (even your average more technically inclined Joe) from installing the latest Beta software on their iPhones. For one, ... and for another, .... Apple does very well with people showing off their devices to others thus increasing the customer base. If you were to show someone a device running iOS 6 beta then it would give them the impression that iOS is ... - not ....

I removed the bits in your post where you were in violation of your developer agreement.

clukas
Jul 9, 2012, 05:42 AM
this is absolutely unbelievable. I had no ideas people were making so much money from selling beta software illegally. Im sure you could torrent iOS 6 if you really wanted.

taedouni
Jul 9, 2012, 05:45 AM
I am glad that Apple shut down those sites. Also if you're a successful developer then $99 is not a big deal. If you have the skills to program a successful application then you should have the ability to pay the $99 fee.

*Calypso*
Jul 9, 2012, 06:05 AM
Apple, if you want to end the business with UDID registrations, end the whole UDID registration constraint - it's as simple as that. It doesn't hurt anybody if non-developers get their hands on the newest iOS a little earlier - in the end it is a free product anyway.

Thunderhawks
Jul 9, 2012, 06:13 AM
I am glad that Apple shut down those sites. Also if you're a successful developer then $99 is not a big deal. If you have the skills to program a successful application then you should have the ability to pay the $99 fee.

The posters (better: Trollies) who complain about Apple making money off the poor developers and taking 30% cuts and $ 99 a year (really $ 8.25 a month = 28 cents a day!) should check the facts and switch on their brains.

Apple so far paid over 5 BILLION dollars to these poor developers .

Apple provides an opportunity to sell apps, basically same as renting a retail store for $ 99 a year.
The 30% they get in commission is not a net profit . Obviously there are employees who get paid to run that business.

If developing apps for ios devices was such a bad business, why so many developers and why so much paid out?

And, whoever doesn't like the Apple set up does not have to participate. Do Android, your own thing in the JB community or whatever.

So, what's to complain about?

If any of the developers had to sell their apps the traditional ways retail, advertising online etc. many of them wouldn't even have a chance and by now have a different job!

This is like a gold rush and some people complaining that they have to buy a sieve to be part of mining.

Get real Apple bashers! Knock them for what deserves knocking.

This is not it!

Xenc
Jul 9, 2012, 06:14 AM
I'm impressed that they managed to make $75k in a month!

alexmarchuk
Jul 9, 2012, 06:20 AM
^ That's funny, the author of the article appears to have only received a reply from me regarding detailed information. (DMCA complaints, 75k, etc.)

The earnings are actually $75,000 since "last" June, not one month like the article states.

My website is activatemyudid.com - Mediatemple takes DMCA notices seriously, meh.

Thunderhawks
Jul 9, 2012, 06:22 AM
Apple, if you want to end the business with UDID registrations, end the whole UDID registration constraint - it's as simple as that. It doesn't hurt anybody if non-developers get their hands on the newest iOS a little earlier - in the end it is a free product anyway.

No, why should their customer support have to handle calls from people who can't wait.

Obviously beta is for testing and not the final product.

Why are you suggesting a company should to do business the way you see it, just because a few nitwits can't wait and must have the latest of the latest to show off?

Obviously whatever Apple did so far has served them well.

Please let us know which successful business you started and share your expertise.

And, make sure we get that expertise for free, doesn't matter when.

The earlier the better:-)

Flitzy
Jul 9, 2012, 06:36 AM
People would have gotten the developer accounts if the price isn't such a ripoff.

You're assuming that a developer account is suitable for consumers.

The price is quite right if you're using it for it's intended purpose and not just so you can get it before everyone....

gnasher729
Jul 9, 2012, 06:38 AM
The posters (better: Trollies) who complain about Apple making money off the poor developers and taking 30% cuts and $ 99 a year (really $ 8.25 a month = 28 cents a day!) should check the facts and switch on their brains.

Apple so far paid over 5 BILLION dollars to these poor developers .

Apple provides an opportunity to sell apps, basically same as renting a retail store for $ 99 a year.
The 30% they get in commission is not a net profit . Obviously there are employees who get paid to run that business.

Just saying: 30% is not Apple's commission. 30% is the difference between the advertised price and the amount of money that the developer gets. Just because the price of an app is $9.99, doesn't mean Apple gets $9.99. Lots of people pay with gift cards, and Apple obviously doesn't receive $50 when you buy a $50 gift card (since obviously no shop would bother selling those gift cards). If you pay by credit card, Apple doesn't get $9.99 either.

kdarling
Jul 9, 2012, 06:42 AM
I guess thats a choice the (free app) developer has to make. Perhaps they should consider making some paid apps to offset the cost if they really need to?

Over 186,000 apps have dropped off from the App Store since it began four years ago. That's 27% of all apps ever submitted.

Also it's fair because Apple is clear on the terms. They haven't deceived anyone at all.

Strawman. No one said they did.

If a developer doesn't like it they are free to move over to Android.

I think that kind of attitude is a longterm mistake. Windows Mobile become a popular development platform because the tools were free at first. Then around 2005 Microsoft dropped free support and hobbyists had to cough up $250 or so to get a working environment. (One time cost.) You could see on the 'net how interest dropped off.

I wonder how many folks complain about Microsoft visual studio ultimate $11,899

Visual Studio 2010 Express for Windows Phone is free.

However, Microsoft took a page from Apple's playbook and also charges $100 for the ability to deploy to a real device.

Find out for yourself.

I was among the original iOS paid developers.

You haven't answered the question as to what the $100 a year buys a developer of free apps.

$99/year is bugger all - even if you just want to do it as a hobby, as I do myself.

For some of us, sure.

$100 is not "bugger all" for college kids, who are future developers, or for many other hobbyists.

The buy-in isn't just $100 a year, either. They also need a Mac, and the latest updates, which the majority of computers users in the world do not have, whereas Android development can be done on Windows, Linux or OSX.

Is the $100 necessary to help poor Apple keep making SDK updates? I don't think so. They set the $100 fee back when there were just a handful of developers. Now they're making over $17 million a year just from dev fees, much less App Store income.

Upshot: Is $100 a rip-off? Not in the overall scheme of things. Is it conducive to persuading more developers to stay away from Android, or is it friendly to students or hobbyists or free app makers? Also no.

rumors-reader
Jul 9, 2012, 06:53 AM
Apple should just open the betas to free developer accounts.

I mean seriously, they announce all the new stuff in the keynote, post the session videos online (telling you all about the new APIs), but don't let you get at the bits?

Sure, it's a beta and not production quality. I'm pretty sure everyone who is installing this knows that and accepts it. They could still require an additional NDA agreement for access.

While they may know it's not production quality, making it free would let the legions of 'tinkerers' download the Beta, then they'd all be marching into the Apple Store looking for tech support on a product that hasn't been fully tested. This would be a nightmare for the Genius Bar (well, any store employee).

The $99 annual fee is enough to help ensure that serious developers only would run the Beta, and would have the skills to deal with it (or understand what's going on).

The $99 fee is a great policy.

Neerazan
Jul 9, 2012, 06:57 AM
Since it has cropped up more than a few times in this thread, I'm going to risk feeding the trolls and debunk the whole "Apple rip off their devs by charging an annual fee and taking a 30% cut, Android devs don't have to deal with that..." nonsense.

Putting aside the perceived value (or lack of) of the $99 annual sub to publish iOS apps, and also the hosting, payment processing, etc... included in the 30%; let's just compare to two of the better know Android app stores; -

Google charge a one off fee of $25 for registration, and take a 30% cut.

Amazon charge an annual fee of $99 for registration, and take a 30% cut too.

I guess if I was going to develop for Android I would want to be in both of those stores to cover as much of the potential market for my apps as possible (and perhaps a few more besides). I would be spending more money publishing android apps than iOS ones...

Thunderhawks
Jul 9, 2012, 07:00 AM
I was among the original iOS paid developers.

You haven't answered the question as to what the $100 a year buys a developer of free apps.

For some of us, sure.

$100 is not "bugger all" for college kids, who are future developers, or for many other hobbyists.

The buy-in isn't just $100 a year, either. They also need a Mac, and the latest updates, which the majority of computers users in the world do not have, whereas Android development can be done on Windows, Linux or OSX.

Is the $100 necessary to help poor Apple keep making SDK updates? I don't think so. They set the $100 fee back when there were just a handful of developers. Now they're making over $17 million a year just from dev fees, much less App Store income.

Upshot: Is $100 a rip-off? Not in the overall scheme of things. Is it conducive to persuading more developers to stay away from Android, or is it friendly to students or hobbyists or free app makers? Also no.

A slight Tunnel view about FREE app developers?

Even free app developers get something:

1) experience to find out about the Apple process
2) checking if what they develop works
3) They are able to gauge if something they do is of interest to others
4) The possibility that if they launch an app that is sensational,
they get noticed and may get contacted by a major firm
5) The possibility to get feedback about their apps
6) The possibility based on all of that to sell a paid app

Just to name a few.

Do you expect them to make exceptions, waive the fee and then expect them to monitor who develops free apps?

In the very end it's about money.

Don't want to pay the $ 100 for anything, free or not, then don't!

Actually, everybody should go where they can make the most money!

If Apple isn't it , then fine.

Bezetos
Jul 9, 2012, 07:07 AM
(...) This has been going on for a couple of years with no particular intervention from Apple. As Wired notes, it seems Apple just didn't seem to care, despite their wide availability.

That may have changed since the publication of the Wired article. (...)

Typical Apple. They didn't care because it was making them money, and now they "care" only because it might cause a PR problem.

edddeduck
Jul 9, 2012, 07:09 AM
Why do we even need 100 slots? I'm using a total of 2. Large development companies might need about 20-50 tops for testing apps on the new OS.

You can't delete older hardware for a year, once you start testing your application by giving it to some beta testers (who need hardware UUID's registered) you will find your 100 devices run out quicker than quick if you are not careful.

I also think Apple are not really being heavy handed if they pull peoples accounts over this it's against the developer agreements and causes loads of iOS6 is buggy etc threads. I guess Wired making it more public was the final straw.

Edwin

MacinDoc
Jul 9, 2012, 07:25 AM
You realize that you are comparing two entirely different universes, or don't you? No, of course you don't. It's just the only example that you could find to make a lame excuse for Apple.

Besides, devs might want to beta-test their own software on customers devices. Not everybody is lusting for Apple's latest Facebook toy app.
What does that have to do with selling registration slots for a profit, in direct violation of the agreement under which they are sold? Apple does not sell registration slots for the purpose of providing devs with a means to earn income by redistributing them. Apple sells the registration package to devs so that they have a development environment in which they are supported in building and testing their apps on the upcoming iOS so that their apps are ready to go when the new iOS is released, keeping their customers satisfied and keeping the sales coming in without interruption.

Now, are there devs out there who are anticipating so few sales per year that it is not worthwhile to invest in being registered developers? Of course there are, but if so few sales are anticipated, one could ask the question of whether consumers would really benefit from the inclusion of such an app in the App Store? A 99 cent app only needs to sell 143 copies a year to generate a profit. A free app generates more income through advertising.

Devs who resell registration slots are not doing so for the benefit of consumers, they are doing so to illegitimately profit from the sale of someone else's intellectual property. It is not all that different from purchasing a piece of software for $100 and then selling 100 illegal copies of it for $10 each. Now Apple could address this abuse by reducing the number of registration slots that come with developer registration, but this would reduce the value of registration for those who use it for legitimate purposes. In fact, by insisting that devs comply with the terms of the agreement, Apple is protecting the investment of those who become registered for legitimate purposes.

So, Apple should allow such illegitimate redistribution of iOS registration slots because...?

Chupa Chupa
Jul 9, 2012, 07:53 AM
Plus a commission for everything you sell. You shouldn't have to pay to get iOS 6 beta since it doesn't even make you any money.

Well, sure, if you are a two bit hack programmer. But for devs w/ talent the potential is in the billions if you look at some of the indy produced apps that made it "big time."

It's unlikely these apps would have made a dime if they had to rely on their own company store site because it doesn't have the marketing muscle of the App store. Plus Apple is covering the bandwidth costs and credit card fees (for those who pay w/ CC not iTunes cost). If you look at what a typical consignment shop charges, Apple's 30% cut is not unreasonable.

*Calypso*
Jul 9, 2012, 07:54 AM
No, why should their customer support have to handle calls from people who can't wait.

No one said that Apple needs to provide support for devices running beta software. Just add an official "Downgrade to latest final build" option in iTunes for those who experience problems.

Obviously beta is for testing and not the final product.

Obviously most developers only test their own apps, not iOS itself. In addition, Apple needs people who test iOS betas in an everyday environment. Why not allow average customers who want to take the risk to test iOS on their primary device? Their feedback would be worth more to Apple than that from developers putting iOS on devices that never perform any real-life tasks and are solely used to debug one piece of software. In other words: While the developer program allows developers to test their apps on iOS 6, there is no official public beta test of iOS 6 itself. This is why Apple should stop this UDID registration madness and hand out iOS 6 for free real beta testing.

Just look in the iOS 6 forum here on MacRumors - it is full of valuable bug reports. If Apple would take all of them into account NOW, maybe we wouldn't be seeing so many x.1 bugfix updates two weeks after the final build.

macingman
Jul 9, 2012, 07:57 AM
You do realize that the simulator is not a substitute for testing on actual device right? It was made for rapid prototyping, primarily of interfaces. Any serious developer will test on every physical device they intend on supporting to see real world performance. The reason behind this is that the simulator runs applications at the speed of your machines processor, utilizing all of its cores. This speed is far faster than even the 3rd generation iPad. Additionally, as it is a simulator and not an emulator, some APIs are not available and do not always function the exact same as those on an actual device.

Not really, most developers can't afford to buy every single device so most don't test on every device. Most apps made today are only compatible with iOS4 or 5 so testing on every device is not needed.

efecanbasoz
Jul 9, 2012, 08:00 AM
I wonder why Apple never think about the different group types for developers. Likewise i am creating App's for hobby and not even sell. So i pay 99$ to put it on App Store, on the other hand Rowio Ent. pays same amount too. It is pointless to give 100 accounts with that. I don't think that lots of small developers have all types of Apple hardware. I just have iPhone - iPad and iPod Touch; even it is lots of hardware for a house.

Apple can create different types of registration, like 20$ for year with 1-2 accounts; 50$ year for 20 accs and 100$ for 100 accs. So just a hobby App builder doesn't have to pay same amount as other big App creator companies. Maybe this will decrease the amount that Apple get from one customer(developer) but it will help increase the total number of developers wants to put their App's to Store but can not afford that money.

GenesisST
Jul 9, 2012, 08:06 AM
I had my license until recently. I naively thought I'd have time to develop something at home (I have two young kids)... I did install the betas for 4 and 5 and did my duty and reported bugs.

Now that I DO develop for iOS at work, I DIDN'T install iOS6. And I don't want to install it on my dev iPad. IT wouldn't like it and I have a good relationship with IT, which means I get access to "upgrades" sooner than most... :-D And my current app project can make do with simulator for the time being.

I decided that I will not install a beta on my 3GS. I would if I had a 4 and up. But I decided that iOS 5 is the top for my "aging" phone.

Gjwilly
Jul 9, 2012, 08:15 AM
They just stopped posting downloads to the betas. They're still taking registrations for UDIDs.

As of this morning, they're registering UDIDs AND posting downloads.
They're just posting them a little more subtly.

edddeduck
Jul 9, 2012, 08:17 AM
No one said that Apple needs to provide support for devices running beta software. Just add an official "Downgrade to latest final build" option in iTunes for those who experience problems.



Obviously most developers only test their own apps, not iOS itself. In addition, Apple needs people who test iOS betas in an everyday environment. Why not allow average customers who want to take the risk to test iOS on their primary device? Their feedback would be worth more to Apple than that from developers putting iOS on devices that never perform any real-life tasks and are solely used to debug one piece of software. In other words: While the developer program allows developers to test their apps on iOS 6, there is no official public beta test of iOS 6 itself. This is why Apple should stop this UDID registration madness and hand out iOS 6 for free real beta testing.

Just look in the iOS 6 forum here on MacRumors - it is full of valuable bug reports. If Apple would take all of them into account NOW, maybe we wouldn't be seeing so many x.1 bugfix updates two weeks after the final build.

The iOS 6 thread is also full of huge numbers of complaints about it being a let down or buggy etc. Similar to iOS we have some people giving our games bad reviews on the Mac App Store. When they finally contact us directly you find they are running Mountain Lion DP1...

My point is members of the public as a group have a poor signal to noise ratio. If members of the pubic really want the beta they can splash out $99, not only do they get all the OS updates to test they can also if they want compile and test software.

If the iOS beta is made available outside of development it has loads of legal implications, what happens if you brick your phone? As a dev you understand the risks and also are likely able to have a go at unbricking. What happens if the emergency number fails and someone dies because of it being a beta? Making the beta developer only keeps all this safe under a developer NDA.

I think the $99 dollar dev cost is low enough to allow small devs to join (remember the cheapest dev account used to be over $1000) but it keeps out the I want to use the new OS but don't understand it's a beta crowd.

As for logging bugs if you go into the developer area you will find pages and pages of the forums on iOS and mountain lion so I don't think very many slip through the cracks.

To summarise if you want to use the OS before it is ready then you have to pony up $99 which is crazy cheap for a developer account and still affordable for your average joe if they are real beta testing fans. $99 is a lot less than 1 coffee a week for a year so should be within most peoples budgets if they really want legitimate access.

Edwin

tarasis
Jul 9, 2012, 08:25 AM
My website is activatemyudid.com - Mediatemple takes DMCA notices seriously, meh.

Good. You shouldn't have been selling them in the first place.

KdParker
Jul 9, 2012, 08:26 AM
This has nothing to do with any law.



It's not $99. It's $99 a year. Otherwise your apps stop being available. Over five years, that's some serious change for many young developers and/or hobbyists who just wanted to make some family apps.

Android charges nothing to be a developer, with a one-time small fee to be in the Market. RIM only charges a one-time $25 signing fee. Not sure about Windows Phone these days. Anyone?



The first time such slots were made available, thousands of ordinary people joined up to get the beta.

Apple apparently decided to look the other way since they could brag about all "the new developers signing up"... and they've done the same for years.

99 for windows dev if believe.

*Calypso*
Jul 9, 2012, 08:29 AM
If the iOS beta is made available outside of development it has loads of legal implications, what happens if you brick your phone? As a dev you understand the risks and also are likely able to have a go at unbricking. What happens if the emergency number fails and someone dies because of it being a beta? Making the beta developer only keeps all this safe under a developer NDA.

Like I said, Apple just needs to offer an official downgrade option (including baseband) and it would be impossible to brick a device in the first place. Also, Apple could offer public betas under similar legal agreements, thereby resolving all legal issues.

Rodimus Prime
Jul 9, 2012, 08:41 AM
99 for windows dev if believe.

is but at the same time it is REALLY REALLY easy to get those fees waved.

Also you do not have to pay those fees if you just want to do hobby development and put the stuff on your own devices. That is and always has been free.

Apple on the other hand it is 100 a year.

Android 100% free and to get on the Android market it is $25 for a life time.

All in all iOS development is a huge rip off compared to others. For students for example I know many that say screw it because it cost to much to get into compared to the others which are free. MS is really nice to students and that is also free.

Thunderhawks
Jul 9, 2012, 08:43 AM
Like I said, Apple just needs to offer an official downgrade option (including baseband) and it would be impossible to brick a device in the first place. Also, Apple could offer public betas under similar legal agreements, thereby resolving all legal issues.


When something is in development it is not ready for the public!

Why would they need to provide options to anybody who is not supposed to have beta versions of anything? To please people who can't wait for a few weeks?

To test things more widely? They are doing that already!

The bug fixes that come out are mainly clean up issues for the few configurations they didn't/couldn't anticipate.

It's not a perfect system, but then again whatever they have done so far works for them.

I think you should apply for a job at Apple, since you know so well what they should do.

dashiel
Jul 9, 2012, 08:48 AM
Yeah it's probably too cheap, they should price it a $299, so in three years for an app that faces competition from about oh 100 other similar apps worldwide and sells for $1.99 they should be making close to $900 per developer. Nice little earner really that $90,000 per niche of app for three years WITHOUT even starting to add the 30% cut...:rolleyes:

That would be $90K gross.

Hereís the thing, if youíre genuinely concerned that $99 fee is going to have a material impact on your ability to make money from an app, youíre in the wrong business. $99 is just the cost of doing business, like paying rent or mortgage, buying software & hardware, paying for electricity and internet access.

Having developed and sold both boxed software and downloadable software I like the App store. Boxed software required huge upfront capitol to press, package and distribute Ė easily more than 30%. Online is better, but you still have to pay for server space, ecommerce, SSL certs, credit card processing fees, PCI compliance. There are many frustrating things about the App store, but I guarantee the $99 fee wouldnít make any developers top 10.

edddeduck
Jul 9, 2012, 08:52 AM
Like I said, Apple just needs to offer an official downgrade option (including baseband) and it would be impossible to brick a device in the first place. Also, Apple could offer public betas under similar legal agreements, thereby resolving all legal issues.

I still think it's too messy. You don't get Android, Windows Phone betas without being a developer, like it or not if you made it available people would expect it to be in much better shape which would mean developers get the OS later in the dev cycle, as the beta is designed to help developers delaying access because keen users want to play with the beta is not a great move.

At $99 I think Apple have provided a way of eager people to access the beta after all it used to be $1000+ to get dev access. Now it's less than 30c a day to get access.

I also think it is important to note if you pay for a real account you can log bugs if you have an illegitimate account you can't log them with Apple Radar.

Edwin

dashiel
Jul 9, 2012, 08:53 AM
The iOS 6 thread is also full of huge numbers of complaints about it being a let down or buggy etc. Similar to iOS we have some people giving our games bad reviews on the Mac App Store. When they finally contact us directly you find they are running Mountain Lion DP1...

My point is members of the public as a group have a poor signal to noise ratio. If members of the pubic really want the beta they can splash out $99, not only do they get all the OS updates to test they can also if they want compile and test software.

I whole-heartedly agree. Perhaps Apple should offer an early access track for those people who arenít developers, but need to satisfy their need for instant gratification. Big red disclaimer from Apple about installing beta software voiding your warranty, $50 and an entirely separate forum.

gnasher729
Jul 9, 2012, 09:04 AM
I wonder why Apple never think about the different group types for developers. Likewise i am creating App's for hobby and not even sell. So i pay 99$ to put it on App Store, on the other hand Rowio Ent. pays same amount too. It is pointless to give 100 accounts with that. I don't think that lots of small developers have all types of Apple hardware. I just have iPhone - iPad and iPod Touch; even it is lots of hardware for a house.

Apple can create different types of registration, like 20$ for year with 1-2 accounts; 50$ year for 20 accs and 100$ for 100 accs. So just a hobby App builder doesn't have to pay same amount as other big App creator companies. Maybe this will decrease the amount that Apple get from one customer(developer) but it will help increase the total number of developers wants to put their App's to Store but can not afford that money.

Do you think developers who cannot pay $99 for their developer account add much value to the AppStore? Seriously, if you are clever enough to create an app that is even remotely worth being on the app store, you are clever enough to find $99.

charlituna
Jul 9, 2012, 09:31 AM
People would have gotten the developer accounts if the price isn't such a ripoff.
The accounts are priced based on the various tools and materials you get, not just the iOS betas. And for most it is a tax write off as a business expense

edddeduck
Jul 9, 2012, 10:12 AM
Do you think developers who cannot pay $99 for their developer account add much value to the AppStore? Seriously, if you are clever enough to create an app that is even remotely worth being on the app store, you are clever enough to find $99.

Completely. If you think about how much it costs to buy a Mac and iOS device to start programming having to pay $99 is almost nothing in terms of a business expense. As Gnasher says if you cannot afford $99 then you have bigger issues.

Remember you can join as a free user develop your product and only pay the $99 when you want to get access to the beta releases or if you want to sell on the app store. If you are worried about making your $99 dollars back in sales I humbly submit that you should be more worried about making the $1000+ you spent on the Mac and iOS device(s). :)

Edwin

WestonHarvey1
Jul 9, 2012, 10:27 AM
The accounts are priced based on the various tools and materials you get, not just the iOS betas. And for most it is a tax write off as a business expense

Tax write-off means you save a couple bucks.

admanimal
Jul 9, 2012, 10:58 AM
Do you think developers who cannot pay $99 for their developer account add much value to the AppStore? Seriously, if you are clever enough to create an app that is even remotely worth being on the app store, you are clever enough to find $99.

Exactly. There is already so much crud in the App Store, I shudder to think what it would be like if Apple made it even easier/cheaper to sell.

soundguyami
Jul 9, 2012, 11:00 AM
Well what does Apple expect, they promise a Fall launch date... and it's Summer. Get with the program Apple!

So you want Apple to pull a Microsoft and launch a product before it is ready and fully tested? Just wait like everybody else. All of the features of iOS6 are not even turned on yet.

faroZ06
Jul 9, 2012, 11:14 AM
Well, sure, if you are a two bit hack programmer. But for devs w/ talent the potential is in the billions if you look at some of the indy produced apps that made it "big time."

It's unlikely these apps would have made a dime if they had to rely on their own company store site because it doesn't have the marketing muscle of the App store. Plus Apple is covering the bandwidth costs and credit card fees (for those who pay w/ CC not iTunes cost). If you look at what a typical consignment shop charges, Apple's 30% cut is not unreasonable.

The 30% commission and fees are reasonable, but I don't see why you should have to pay extra to get iOS 6 before it is actually released. Plenty of other companies give out free beta products.

----------


This is like a gold rush and some people complaining that they have to buy a sieve to be part of mining.

Get real Apple bashers! Knock them for what deserves knocking.

This is not it!

The problem is that Apple's restrictions on apps are too tight. You can't make any app plugins. If I want to make an "app" (not actually an app) that adds something to the Messages App, that is not allowed. The apps are also very isolated data-wise. It's impossible to make a texting app.

soundguyami
Jul 9, 2012, 11:25 AM
It's called quality control. Microsoft would be in a lot better shape and not so desperate right now if they used it. Not sure if you realize..but the future of Microsoft's consumer division totally lies in the success of Windows 8...that's a huge risk! Their stock has been flat since 2001.

Apple's products work because they keep tight control on their brand..this is a good corporate concept used by millions of companies.
----------

[/COLOR]

The problem is that Apple's restrictions on apps are too tight. You can't make any app plugins. If I want to make an "app" (not actually an app) that adds something to the Messages App, that is not allowed. The apps are also very isolated data-wise. It's impossible to make a texting app.[/QUOTE]

TouchMint.com
Jul 9, 2012, 12:22 PM
I think the reason apple does not let everyone beta test compared to say msft is because apple users just are not that computer savvy. Apple users just expect things to work and when they dont it means head in to the genius bar to get my problem fixed (which is great I wish msft system worked this way). While this does not apply to most users on this forum I believe it’s a key reason for most users.


I have an idea to deal with the illegal downloads!

Brick all the phones that have illegal installs of ios6 on them and suspend all the developer accounts that distributed. =)

gwangung
Jul 9, 2012, 01:04 PM
Completely. If you think about how much it costs to buy a Mac and iOS device to start programming having to pay $99 is almost nothing in terms of a business expense. As Gnasher says if you cannot afford $99 then you have bigger issues.

Remember you can join as a free user develop your product and only pay the $99 when you want to get access to the beta releases or if you want to sell on the app store. If you are worried about making your $99 dollars back in sales I humbly submit that you should be more worried about making the $1000+ you spent on the Mac and iOS device(s). :)

Edwin

Yup.

Lot of people around here (with big mouths) have no idea on how to run a business.

coolfactor
Jul 9, 2012, 02:35 PM
Well what does Apple expect, they promise a Fall launch date... and it's Summer. Get with the program Apple!

I fail to see how your comment has any relevance to this article.

Mad-B-One
Jul 9, 2012, 03:09 PM
... I don't run iOS 6 because I am not a Dev. I thought about it, but I curently don't have a Mac, so it's pointless. Now what are the pros? Cool features others don't have access to, yet. Wow. What are the costs? Possible crashes, a phone tunring into a brick. Now, you could say " Risks are known, open it for all!" For Apple this would be bad for several reasons: People seeing a Beta phone and not understanding much of it think that Apple iOS is just full of flaws. Also, someone coulld sue Apple (and they are already busy fighting other giants) because they let someone put software on their phone which then didn't allow the user to call 9-1-1 because it crashed. Trust me, in the USA, you will find that. Lets exagurate: People will drown their spouses and blame it on the phone not being able to call 9-1-1 (I'm thinking about the kind of people who sue McDonnalds for selling "too hot" coffee knowing that McDonnalds is known for brewing "extra hot" to achieve a better taste).

gnasher729
Jul 9, 2012, 03:10 PM
I think the reason apple does not let everyone beta test compared to say msft is because apple users just are not that computer savvy. Apple users just expect things to work and when they dont it means head in to the genius bar to get my problem fixed (which is great I wish msft system worked this way). While this does not apply to most users on this forum I believe it’s a key reason for most users.

Oh my god! You really have no idea about Mac users. Where I work, all the software developers have been switching over to Macs for their personal computers. I'm not saying "they are switching", it has happened a long time ago.

The reason why you don't get public betas with Apple is that Microsoft uses public betas to produce excitement for their products (doesn't work with Windows 8 though :p ), while Apple ships betas to developers so they can fix problems with their apps, implement new features and find bugs in the software. Bug reports from gazillions of non-professional users, no matter how "computer-savvy", do not actually produce any useful input, because most people cannot describe a problem in such a way that it helps a developer reproducing and fixing it.


The problem is that Apple's restrictions on apps are too tight. You can't make any app plugins. If I want to make an "app" (not actually an app) that adds something to the Messages App, that is not allowed. The apps are also very isolated data-wise. It's impossible to make a texting app.

With lots of people just waiting for an opportunity to create malware for Macs and iPhones, the times where you could do such a thing - and could get it published on a semi-official app store are over (until death penalty is introduced for malicious hackers plus anyone involved in their business). See this link as an example: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/09/android_trustgo_china_mobile/

Mad-B-One
Jul 9, 2012, 03:19 PM
Bug reports from gazillions of non-professional users, no matter how "computer-savvy", do not actually produce any useful input, because most people cannot describe a problem in such a way that it helps a developer reproducing and fixing it.

And it doesn't stop there: I worked as professional Beta-Tester for a while. You can't even imagine how bad beta testers can be - and they are the professionals. I mean, some of us knew how to program simple things and we understood the principles etc. Some other ones didn't have more to say than: "It crashed at 9:36AM and I send you the video and memory read-out." Yea, thanks, keep your memory readout. That is just Hex stacks. What did you do to get there where it crashed? 2 min video might not cut it because it wasn't the last thing you did causing all the crash... Sometimes, it is just terribad. Also, you want to be able to reproduce bugs to not count an overheated GPU as a software issue just because your PC is full of dust.

blow45
Jul 9, 2012, 03:23 PM
That would be $90K gross.

Hereís the thing, if youíre genuinely concerned that $99 fee is going to have a material impact on your ability to make money from an app, youíre in the wrong business. $99 is just the cost of doing business, like paying rent or mortgage, buying software & hardware, paying for electricity and internet access.

Having developed and sold both boxed software and downloadable software I like the App store. Boxed software required huge upfront capitol to press, package and distribute Ė easily more than 30%. Online is better, but you still have to pay for server space, ecommerce, SSL certs, credit card processing fees, PCI compliance. There are many frustrating things about the App store, but I guarantee the $99 fee wouldnít make any developers top 10.

What's that's supposed to mean? The you mean waiving $99 fee wouldn't make any developers top 10? Yeah so what?

Your zest and others here like you to defend the most obscenely rich company on the globe continuing to leach off their developers who are the ones with their fees that support apple's code efforts is pitiable. If you are not an apple stock holder you are a major, major victim.

Free apps shouldn't be hosted for 5 years for $500 dollars. Apple can afford to host free apps, well free. Apple shouldn't also be making about 30 million dollars per year by virtue of having people pay a developers fee to them. They are writing a bunch of code for xcode and maintaining their platform, they should pay for that themselves. They are already getting 30% per sale, that's more than enough. In addition their devices wouldn't sell like crazy if it weren't for the developers. They are adding all the important value for their platform. I shouldn't be paying $500 for having them host my free app for 5 years. How hard is for you and people like you to get this?

Congratulate yourselves for being victims here standing up for the big guy becoming even more obscenely rich and bigger.

bedifferent
Jul 9, 2012, 03:28 PM
As a developer for a long time, I recall when Apple charged $499 for OS X ADC membership, and up for different tiers (this also included discounts and WWDC tickets in some cases). When iOS was released, Apple began the $99 price point.

I strongly believe this was a decision to entice non-developers who would like to use the beta software for many reasons. Many people don't mind throwing down $99 for early releases, it may also entice non-developers to enter the developer world and whether people report bugs iOS devices still send data to Apple on such things as energy logging and statistics.

Apple gets the $99 fee no matter, and opens the system to lots of individuals. This model was such a success Apple followed by doing the same for OS X Lion. We were stunned when Apple lowered OS X membership to $99 from the hundreds they charged previously.

blow45
Jul 9, 2012, 03:34 PM
Yup.

Lot of people around here (with big mouths) have no idea on how to run a business.

A few people around here know damn well how to run a business, that's why they can see through to what apple is doing, having developers fund apple's xcode development via more than 30-40 mil a year based on the fee system, AND fund the app store and make a profit for apple for it via the 30% system, AND at the same time help apple push a few millions of ios devices based on the added value of the apps. And all that when the marketplace is a race to the bottom in terms of prices and the competition is fierce.

It's exactly because some people have run businesses that they can see through what apple is doing and find it unacceptable.

I ll say it again.

The fees should be minimal, $10 a year (even at that price they will be making about 4 million a year) I am not funding apple developing xcode and ios, they should do it themselves, store infrastructure as well as profit is AMPLE for them via the 30% cut alone, they don't need a fee for someone developing and hosting free apps, that puts value to their devices.

Anyone can disagree all they want here, since when what apple was doing could be criticized without having the minions feeling compelled to defend them? Never.

Google and ms can make technology to have private communications with god himself, and there still be people here saying yeah, well what about privacy and windows viruses, I am sure it's not that great talking to good and having google spy on you....

But god forbid if you take apple to task...

dashiel
Jul 9, 2012, 06:40 PM
What's that's supposed to mean? The you mean waiving $99 fee wouldn't make any developers top 10? Yeah so what?

If developers donít care about the $99 fee why do you?

Your zest and others here like you to defend the most obscenely rich company on the globe continuing to leach off their developers who are the ones with their fees that support apple's code efforts is pitiable.

I hope you noticed developers are by & large the ones defending the $99 fee; it keeps out the riffraff - though not enough for my liking.

If you are not an apple stock holder you are a major, major victim.


I am. So wahoo!

Free apps shouldn't be hosted for 5 years for $500 dollars.

Why?

Apple can afford to host free apps, well free.
Apple shouldn't also be making about 30 million dollars per year by virtue of having people pay a developers fee to them.

Apple can afford to do a lot of things. Not sure where you got your $30 million figure from, but assuming itís legit itís also gross. Tally up the cost of servers, bandwidth, insurance, employees, etcÖ then subtract to get net.

They are already getting 30% per sale, that's more than enough.

Unless the app is free. Paradox.

In addition their devices wouldn't sell like crazy if it weren't for the developers.

I think the iPod disproves that. Hundred of millions sold and not a single App before 2007. But you are correct the App store ecosystem is very large driver of iOS adoption, but itís not like developers are releasing Apps as a favor to Apple we want to make money in one way or another, there is no market as widespread as the App store.

They are adding all the important value for their platform. I shouldn't be paying $500 for having them host my free app for 5 years. How hard is for you and people like you to get this?


Why is your app free? Why do you value your work so little?

Thereís a charity that creates a device to clean well water, they distribute it third world countries. Their first attempt they gave the device away for free and found it was cannibalized to repair other machines in the town. Their second attempt they charged money for it, even though they didnít need to, the machine became coveted and other machines were cannibalized to keep it running. Moral of the story, cost creates value; the $99 fee covers costs for Apple, but also makes being a developer a deliberate action, not just some service you give away your email address to. $99 requires a level of commitment. Beyond that itís rather simple economics, supply and demand. Apple charges $99 because they can.

Like I said this yearís $99 investment has already nabbed me a $75,000, even my Apple stock doesnít have that kind of ROI.

un10101
Jul 9, 2012, 07:08 PM
Get with the program and do what?

----------



In all seriousness, what is a ripoff? A $99 fee to develop products in a ready made market? Or is it something else?


They have absolutely no idea what they are even talking about.

renai-spirit
Jul 9, 2012, 07:09 PM
You haven't answered the question as to what the $100 a year buys a developer of free apps.

I don't believe in spoon-feeding whiners/trolls - try your luck on duckduckgo. As you were "among the original iOS paid developers" I would have thought you should know the answer in any case.

$100 is not "bugger all" for college kids, who are future developers, or for many other hobbyists.

Bollocks. For a hobby, $100 per year is sweet f-a.

Your other points are just ludicrous.

TouchMint.com
Jul 9, 2012, 07:22 PM
Honestly most app developers (including myself) believe there should be a fee per app as well.

It is rather hard to get a new app noticed without buying downloads or being a mega corp.

The reason it is so hard to get noticed even with a decent app is because of people spamming the app store. If you do a search on anything and scroll down a bit there are horribly built apps that are just scams, copies or look/work like crap. When you release a new app your app goes below this sht and its pretty hard to get noticed 10 pages down.

I am in no way saying my apps are the best but I can honestly say they at least do what is in the description and I have put some effort into design although I am not a designer.



$100 and 30% is nothing to sell and be hosted on their market. Do you have any idea how much a dev license costs for a "real gaming system"? Do you know what cut programmers get from creating a retail program that might be sold in walmart or bestbuy (hint its a lot less than 70%)

Do you realize you can do no marketing/promoting whatsoever and because of the app stores wide audience make a six figure income by yourself?

marksman
Jul 9, 2012, 09:04 PM
People would have gotten the developer accounts if the price isn't such a ripoff.

It is not a rip off for an actual developer. The price is what it is for this exact reason. They don't intend this as a public beta test.

See sll the stupid feedback from non developers and you know why apple finally had enough. It is not intended for end users to try out the os early. It is intended for app developers to create apps and update apps to work with the new version. Nothing else.

Hawkeye411
Jul 9, 2012, 09:08 PM
Do you realize you can do no marketing/promoting whatsoever and because of the app stores wide audience make a six figure income by yourself?

You are mistaken. Simply offering a good app in the app store will never guarantee you success. Just like any business that exists today, YOU are in charge of marketing/promotion!!! If you honestly believe that your chances of making a six figure income (which by the way is a relatively small income for any gaming software company that would consider calling itself successful) would increase by simply increasing the developer fee, your wrong!! You can build the best software/widget but if you can't market it properly your SOL. Chances of accidentally making a small income of six figures or decent seven figure income without a proper marketing campaign are about the same as winning the lottery!

Good luck!!!

efecanbasoz
Jul 10, 2012, 12:29 AM
Do you think developers who cannot pay $99 for their developer account add much value to the AppStore? Seriously, if you are clever enough to create an app that is even remotely worth being on the app store, you are clever enough to find $99.

So you think that only clever and super-genius people can write that programs; and even more that people have lots of money. LoL come to real world please. Most of developers are not professional guys/girls working in a company or own a company that creates applications. They just do it in their own room of house with just having fun to do it. There are lots of little App's that created by people; so you think all of them are clever enough to create them but silly about making them free?

Programming is not about money, it is about passion. So if you don't know about it, please don't criticize it too.

Completely. If you think about how much it costs to buy a Mac and iOS device to start programming having to pay $99 is almost nothing in terms of a business expense. As Gnasher says if you cannot afford $99 then you have bigger issues.

Remember you can join as a free user develop your product and only pay the $99 when you want to get access to the beta releases or if you want to sell on the app store. If you are worried about making your $99 dollars back in sales I humbly submit that you should be more worried about making the $1000+ you spent on the Mac and iOS device(s). :)

Edwin

So you say that all hardware from Apple costs more then thousand dollars. It is funny because seems like you never heard second hand hardware. I bought my MBA for 600$ which is also not my money; my dads gift for birthday. Apple says that i am giving out XCode in App Store for free but i get cash when you want to put an App you created on my Store at beginning and cut a percentage if you sell it with cash. Only be happy if you give out it for free then.

You think all developers works in big companies and building with unlimited cash. It is not the real world buddy, sorry about it. You can buy a book about Objective C for just 5$ and create small to mid size App's with that. It does not make you clever, just trying new things about programming.

admanimal
Jul 10, 2012, 12:59 AM
Most of developers are not professional guys/girls working in a company or own a company that creates applications. They just do it in their own room of house with just having fun to do it. There are lots of little App's that created by people; so you think all of them are clever enough to create them but silly about making them free?


And of all of those non-professional developers, what percentage of them actually are able to make something that is truly worth downloading? Based on what I have seen in the App Store, probably less than 1%.

On the whole, the App Store would be much better off if only serious and/or professional developers were allowed to submit apps, and not every schmuck who has ever managed to cobble together a pointless one view app from an online tutorial and thought they could get rich. The $99 fee is the least Apple can do to keep the store from becoming a complete pile of trash.

Thomas P.
Jul 10, 2012, 01:42 AM
At micro level, its all right, Apple is justified in taking actions against them. and they should stop such activities. But looking to all this at a Macro level, we find that the :apple:'s policy is sort of confusing.

Apple should follow the policy of Microsoft when it comes to such cases where people are doing illegal stuff to them. Microsoft windows is widely used by the illegal users yet Microsoft is not taking any strong actions and they are just keeping their large user base. I think Apple should also try to develop one such policy in which they can avoid these legal actions so frequently for design and illegal usage and such stuff.

Neerazan
Jul 10, 2012, 04:47 AM
I have done a bit more digging into the numbers and have found this... http://148apps.biz/app-store-metrics/?mpage

If we take the stats on that site to be broadly correct we can start to estimate Apple's income and expenditure using the most up to date figures as a snapshot...

Latest figures show 171,675 active devs on the app store, assuming people register for dev accounts and pay their subs in order to publish apps (rather than just sell betas of iOS6) that gives Apple an annual income of; -

$99 x 171,675 = $16,995,825

This month so far, the average number of new apps submitted and approved each day is 537 (it is unclear from the stats if this number includes updates to existing apps, so let's assume it includes updates).

Now we have to start estimating Apple's costs for running the approval process...

I will assume that Apple have a pretty well automated system for checking and approving apps and updates, so let's estimate that each app or update takes on average just two hours of assorted staff's time to go from submission to being up on the app store...

Let's also assume that the staff involved have a reasonable cost per hour to Apple, say $30 p/h including all on-costs (pay, healthcare, taxes, office space, lighting, heating, computers, etc..).

So, the annual staffing cost of running the approval process for the app store is estimated at ; -

$30 p/h x 2 hours x 537 apps x 365 days = $11,760,300.

Leaving a little over $5,200,000 to cover hosting free apps, maintaing dev tools and support, running education licences, dealing with apps that fail approval processes, etc...

At best (or worst, depending on your POV) the $99 annual dev fee may contribute $2-$3M to Apple's bottom line each year, which is pretty much a rounding error in the scale of their balance sheet, and one whole order of magnitude less than the $30M that has been suggested elsewhere on this thread.

edddeduck
Jul 10, 2012, 06:08 AM
So you say that all hardware from Apple costs more then thousand dollars. It is funny because seems like you never heard second hand hardware.

I have heard of second hand hardware and used and bought second hand hardware before.

I bought my MBA for 600$ which is also not my money; my dads gift for birthday. Apple says that i am giving out XCode in App Store for free but i get cash when you want to put an App you created on my Store at beginning and cut a percentage if you sell it with cash. Only be happy if you give out it for free then.


I was using $1000 as an example even if you say $600 the point is still there. If you can buy a $600 laptop and want to sell an application then surely you can afford the $99 a year membership?

Even if your app is free to download paying Apple $99 a year to host your application and all your marketing information and provide a high speed store to every iOS user is a good deal surely?


You think all developers works in big companies and building with unlimited cash. It is not the real world buddy, sorry about it. You can buy a book about Objective C for just 5$ and create small to mid size App's with that. It does not make you clever, just trying new things about programming.

I have never worked for a company for unlimited cash... I work in the real world where you have to keep a firm hold on spending. You don't even need to spend $5 on a book about objective C if you use free internet resources if you really get down to it.

However if you want to sell your product and get access to the developer resources paying $99 is very cheap considering the access and features you can for your money. As I said it's less than 30c a day.

Here is one example you could host a 1GB application on the App Store for free for your users for an entire year and have 1000s of downloads for only $99! In most places $99 a year will not even cover your hosting fees!

My point is if you are complaining about Apple's $99 fee to be a registered developer with access to betas, Apple engineers and being able to sell in the App Store you are likely missing bigger issues. Yes you have to pay but the cost is low so that small companies and even single programmers like you say you are can afford to join.

The free developer accounts allow you access to the current SDK and developer information with no charge, if you want to sell your app or get access to the latest beta you need to pay $99 a year but only for those two reasons.

This means the only reason to pay is if you want to get access to the beta or if you want to sell an application. Once you sell $130 worth of sales you have covered your developer costs for the year. If your app is free and popular then usually you can get someone to donate towards your membership fee if money is really that tight. Or you can group together with some like minded friends and form a developer team and lower the costs even more.

Edwin

efecanbasoz
Jul 10, 2012, 07:34 AM
I have heard of second hand hardware and used and bought second hand hardware before.



I was using $1000 as an example even if you say $600 the point is still there. If you can buy a $600 laptop and want to sell an application then surely you can afford the $99 a year membership?

Even if your app is free to download paying Apple $99 a year to host your application and all your marketing information and provide a high speed store to every iOS user is a good deal surely?



I have never worked for a company for unlimited cash... I work in the real world where you have to keep a firm hold on spending. You don't even need to spend $5 on a book about objective C if you use free internet resources if you really get down to it.

However if you want to sell your product and get access to the developer resources paying $99 is very cheap considering the access and features you can for your money. As I said it's less than 30c a day.

Here is one example you could host a 1GB application on the App Store for free for your users for an entire year and have 1000s of downloads for only $99! In most places $99 a year will not even cover your hosting fees!

My point is if you are complaining about Apple's $99 fee to be a registered developer with access to betas, Apple engineers and being able to sell in the App Store you are likely missing bigger issues. Yes you have to pay but the cost is low so that small companies and even single programmers like you say you are can afford to join.

The free developer accounts allow you access to the current SDK and developer information with no charge, if you want to sell your app or get access to the latest beta you need to pay $99 a year but only for those two reasons.

This means the only reason to pay is if you want to get access to the beta or if you want to sell an application. Once you sell $130 worth of sales you have covered your developer costs for the year. If your app is free and popular then usually you can get someone to donate towards your membership fee if money is really that tight. Or you can group together with some like minded friends and form a developer team and lower the costs even more.

Edwin

The most important thing is; i did not say to make is free anywhere. I just pointed a point that not all people can cover that money. It's not about myself but i know my friends that can not find cash for it. They work on university iMac's and create their programs there. And they can not sell them cause they don't have enough money for that.

So as i said in my first message making 20$ for year for 1-2 accounts let these people into the job. Just create and run your App at computer is pointless. It is about choosing to give opportunity to anyone to put their App or just giving that opportunity that got some cash to pay.

WordMasterRice
Jul 10, 2012, 08:11 AM
Remember you can join as a free user develop your product and only pay the $99 when you want to get access to the beta releases or if you want to sell on the app store.

Yes, if you are content using your app in the simulator. They should have the $99 for the AppStore, but not everybody wants to put things on the AppStore. I just want to make an app for a few friends and distribute it AdHoc.

edddeduck
Jul 10, 2012, 08:23 AM
The most important thing is; i did not say to make is free anywhere. I just pointed a point that not all people can cover that money. It's not about myself but i know my friends that can not find cash for it. They work on university iMac's and create their programs there. And they can not sell them cause they don't have enough money for that.

So as i said in my first message making 20$ for year for 1-2 accounts let these people into the job. Just create and run your App at computer is pointless. It is about choosing to give opportunity to anyone to put their App or just giving that opportunity that got some cash to pay.

If your product cannot make enough sales to cover the $99 membership then you have to ask is the app good enough? Another example is contact a publisher. There are many publishers who will put your app on the app store for part of the sales. Or perhaps your university could have a university account that students could place their products into the app store.

I still stand by my view that if you cannot sell enough copies to cover the $99 charge then perhaps the app is not good enough.

If you only want to give the app to some friends and family as the other poster said you can use Ad Hoc distribution.

Edwin

KnightWRX
Jul 10, 2012, 08:26 AM
And of all of those non-professional developers, what percentage of them actually are able to make something that is truly worth downloading? Based on what I have seen in the App Store, probably less than 1%.

On the whole, the App Store would be much better off if only serious and/or professional developers were allowed to submit apps, and not every schmuck who has ever managed to cobble together a pointless one view app from an online tutorial and thought they could get rich. The $99 fee is the least Apple can do to keep the store from becoming a complete pile of trash.

So Angry Birds or Fruit Ninja should never have been made then ? :rolleyes: Neither should Twitter or Facebook exist. Macrumors should have written their first website from scratch instead of using Slashcode also I guess... By that token, OS X should not even exist since BSD should never have been allowed to exist, because its developers were not serious and professional.

What a condescending post from someone who probably never wrote a single line of code in his life.

edddeduck
Jul 10, 2012, 09:23 AM
So Angry Birds or Fruit Ninja should never have been made then ? :rolleyes: Neither should Twitter or Facebook exist. Macrumors should have written their first website from scratch instead of using Slashcode also I guess... By that token, OS X should not even exist since BSD should never have been allowed to exist, because its developers were not serious and professional.

What a condescending post from someone who probably never wrote a single line of code in his life.

Angry Birds and Fruit Ninja had a pretty large budget you would be surprised. By the time they got into the App Store they spend over $100,000 so for them $99 would be a small drop in the ocean. They were a fairly large company with overheads so not the best example.

You don't need lots of cash but equally you will need to spend some you can't usually get away with spending nothing. Twitter needed expensive hosting soon after launch for example that costs money which they no doubt got funding for.

My point is sure you don't need money to write software but it helps.

Edwin

Chupa Chupa
Jul 10, 2012, 09:24 AM
The 30% commission and fees are reasonable, but I don't see why you should have to pay extra to get iOS 6 before it is actually released. Plenty of other companies give out free beta products.[COLOR="#808080"]



Plenty of other companies do, but there is only one Apple. Having used Apple's beta products previously, and currently, I think Apple's policy is correct. $99 is a cheap price to be in the developer program and keeps out users that shouldn't be using betas b/c they don't understand they are not a complete product and shouldn't be used on a work machine.

If memory serves me I think 10.0 was the last public beta Apple had, and boy oh boy, was it every not ready for prime time. The public release version wasn't even fully baked. It's just not something for the general public and if someone is THAT interested then $99 is a small price to pay, esp since it includes the public release version too.

edddeduck
Jul 10, 2012, 09:58 AM
Plenty of other companies do, but there is only one Apple. Having used Apple's beta products previously, and currently, I think Apple's policy is correct. $99 is a cheap price to be in the developer program and keeps out users that shouldn't be using betas b/c they don't understand they are not a complete product and shouldn't be used on a work machine.

If memory serves me I think 10.0 was the last public beta Apple had, and boy oh boy, was it every not ready for prime time. The public release version wasn't even fully baked. It's just not something for the general public and if someone is THAT interested then $99 is a small price to pay, esp since it includes the public release version too.

As you said plenty do but plenty don't, early access to Windows, XBox, Playstation, Wii, 3DS, Playstation Vita were all via paid for developer services often at the cost of thousands and thousands of dollars a year. Sure some like Windows had a public beta later on but the initial release was only for developers. It's how it is, before you release you give your primary developers early access to give feedback and start work.

Apple do have public beta's where applicable, Messages and FaceTime are two examples I can think of.

Edwin

kdarling
Jul 10, 2012, 11:31 AM
Apple do have public beta's where applicable, Messages and FaceTime are two examples I can think of.

And Siri.

admanimal
Jul 10, 2012, 11:39 AM
So Angry Birds or Fruit Ninja should never have been made then ? :rolleyes: Neither should Twitter or Facebook exist. Macrumors should have written their first website from scratch instead of using Slashcode also I guess... By that token, OS X should not even exist since BSD should never have been allowed to exist, because its developers were not serious and professional.

What a condescending post from someone who probably never wrote a single line of code in his life.

Way to stretch my words completely out of context. I was talking specifically about the App Store, and how most apps made by non-pro developers are terrible and just clutter up the store. When I say "pro" developer, what I really mean are people who are serious about it and understand what it takes to really make a good piece of software, regardless of whether they have ever done it before. Both Angry Birds and Fruit Ninja were created by professional, albeit unknown at the time, development teams. I have no problem with open source software or anything made by innovative small-time developers. It just seems that a lot of amateur "developers" read one book on iOS programming and somehow think that means they are entitled to get rich from whatever simple app they can cobble together.

subsonix
Jul 10, 2012, 12:29 PM
By that token, OS X should not even exist since BSD should never have been allowed to exist, because its developers were not serious and professional.

:rolleyes: The developers at the computer research group at berkeley would qualify as both serious and professional.