$99/year Developer Fee to Publish Applications [Archive]

MacRumors

Mar 6, 2008, 05:44 PM

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

There's been some confusion on this topic due to the reporting of the iPhone SDK event, but it appears that the $99 fee required to publish your applications to the iTunes App Store is an annual charge.

From Apple's press release (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2008/03/06iphone.html): The Standard Program costs $99 (US) per year and gives members an iPhone SDK and development tools; access to pre-release iPhone software; technical support; the ability to get code onto iPhones for testing; and distribution of applications via the new App Store.

To sum up:

- iTunes App Store to browse, purchase and download iPhone apps
- Developers set the price and get 70% of revenue. Apple keeps 30% for their costs.
- Applications must be approved by Apple and apps are available exclusively through the App Store
- No charge to distribute free applications, but you still have to pay the $99/year fee.

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2008/03/06/99-year-developer-fee-to-publish-applications/)

JonHimself

Mar 6, 2008, 05:48 PM

So now how likely are people to provide free apps if they have to cough up 100 a year? Will they just rely on donations? Ad money from their site?

TheSpecialist

Mar 6, 2008, 06:00 PM

Cant the iFund project fund these free apps?

yoman

Mar 6, 2008, 06:03 PM

That's better than $99 per application.

matthiasgoodman

Mar 6, 2008, 06:04 PM

So now how likely are people to provide free apps if they have to cough up 100 a year? Will they just rely on donations? Ad money from their site?

As I understand it, when your App is on iTunes, Apple hosts it. $99 per year is cheaper than hosting it yourself, something that most developers of free apps have to pay for themselves, so this $99 is a good deal, no?

jessica.

Mar 6, 2008, 06:05 PM

As I understand it, when your App is on iTunes, Apple hosts it. $99 per year is cheaper than hosting it yourself, something that most developers of free apps have to pay for themselves, so this $99 is a good deal, no?
This is very much the case and I also agree $99 a year is a great deal.

overanalyzer

Mar 6, 2008, 06:08 PM

matthiasgoodman

Mar 6, 2008, 06:19 PM

I'm still confused about whether this is in addition to the usual $99/year ADC membership fee or if they just mean you have to be a non-free member, i.e. have at least the $99/year membership.... Wasn't there also something about it being $299/year to be able to distribute apps within an enterprise not via the App Store?

It is completely separate from ADC membership levels. I am a free ADC member and just applied to sign up for the developer program.

The $299 level is something we may do at the medical practice I work at. I actually like that they are charging more if you plan not to contribute (even commercially) your programs to the community. Also, since they need to set up a special iTunes conduit or some other way to limit access to your company only, I think this is a very reasonable fee as well.

Now for my question, does the firmware come with the PAID version? It seems it may, since it says that you will be able to test on your iPhone.

JMax1

Mar 6, 2008, 06:27 PM

So now how likely are people to provide free apps if they have to cough up 100 a year? Will they just rely on donations? Ad money from their site?

My guess is that someone will have some paid for apps, if they develop a bunch, and might offer some free ones too that aren't probably as good as paid-for apps. Or maybe they'll offer free demo versions of their full app. Image the downloads section of the apple website. Lots of free downloads, but many are just demos.

Another note about the apple website, while I'm thinking of it: why isn't the apple website iPhone friendly?

Littleodie914

Mar 6, 2008, 06:30 PM

psychofreak

Mar 6, 2008, 06:32 PM

matthiasgoodman

Mar 6, 2008, 06:32 PM

Snips

Mar 6, 2008, 06:37 PM

Note also (from the iPhone Developer Program page):

"The iPhone Developer Program will initially be available to a limited number of developers in the U.S. and will expand to other countries in the coming months."

I believe this refers to the $99 App Store program, the free SDK is available to all.

Nige
--
www.binarydisco.com

killmoms

Mar 6, 2008, 06:41 PM

I was honestly a bit surprised that Apple's charging people to distribute their applications.

I'm a college student, and I have had a couple ideas for iPhone applications, but I'm certainly not planning on paying $99 a year just to give them away! :confused:

So why not develop the hell out of them and charge a dollar. You'd only need 142 people to buy the app in a year to recoup your cost.

ghall

Mar 6, 2008, 06:44 PM

I watched that part of the video and Steve says that there are no charges expect the commission Apple takes out of the price of your app.

miep

Mar 6, 2008, 06:44 PM

Because you seem to be able to push unlimited apps, I could easily see a shareware model: you download a full-functional demo for free, but after a few days of use, you'll be asked to download the for-pay service, which is cheap/expensive enough to offset the costs of hosting.

I don't know, is 50 cents reasonable for a good app? Now you only need 286 users (because you only get to keep 70% of those 50 cts) to pay for the developer program. That sounds very reasonable.

Eraserhead

Mar 6, 2008, 06:48 PM

I was honestly a bit surprised that Apple's charging people to distribute their applications.

I'm a college student, and I have had a couple ideas for iPhone applications, but I'm certainly not planning on paying $99 a year just to give them away! :confused:

But as previously argued it is fairly similar to the bandwidth costs, for hosting D&D Manager which gets 5000 downloads/month my costs are currently in the same ballpark, though admittedly a bit lower.

Another thing I could foresee happening would be that packagers, like Ste, could get the source from developers and upload it to iTunes. That way many free applications can be posted under one $99/year fee.

True.

ata

Mar 6, 2008, 06:57 PM

Eraserhead

Mar 6, 2008, 07:18 PM

So Apple is going to be trying to actively prevent application distribution outside the App Store?

That's disappointing. But surely there's a way for developers to install their applications on their own phones indefinitely? If that's the case, couldn't people get around the App Store requirement by distributing their apps as open source/free software, so anyone can appear to be the 'developer' from the phone's perspective?

Not too much of a shock IMO. And it should keep the security tight.

I wonder if unlocked phones will be able to use the AppStore? It should reduce unlockings if not.

davidje13

Mar 6, 2008, 07:30 PM

So Apple is going to be trying to actively prevent application distribution outside the App Store?

That's disappointing. But surely there's a way for developers to install their applications on their own phones indefinitely? If that's the case, couldn't people get around the App Store requirement by distributing their apps as open source/free software, so anyone can appear to be the 'developer' from the phone's perspective?
Testing on an iPhone is a $99 extra, so no, because it would mean any users would need to pay $99 anyway.

It's a shame they're charging, but I'm (slowly) downloading the SDK and I'm going to see what I can come up with :D
(no iPhone to test on tho :( )

View

Mar 6, 2008, 08:05 PM

Testing on an iPhone is a $99 extra, so no, because it would mean any users would need to pay $99 anyway.

It's a shame they're charging, but I'm (slowly) downloading the SDK and I'm going to see what I can come up with :D
(no iPhone to test on tho :( )

I don't think you can actually test it on the iPhone right now. You still have to use the emulator to test your application now. Unless I'm missing something.

Peace

Mar 6, 2008, 08:19 PM

Has anybody had success actually logging in to apply for the 2.0 ?

I keep getting a not found and error 404

And it's starting to tick me off.

Analog Kid

Mar 6, 2008, 09:36 PM

I don't like the idea, but I can see why it would be necessary. The fee isn't big enough to be a money maker.

The reason Apple might be doing this is to make sure people are serious about what goes up there. There's a lot of crap that makes it onto VersionTracker-- tutorial applications from Cocoa text books, for example. The $99 ensures you're not just submitting an app to see your name in lights.

The other reason is probably to make sure that apps get pulled off the site once they're not being maintained anymore. Again, VT has a bunch of stuff that's been there since 2005 and hasn't worked since Panther or whatever. Charging prevents this from happening as well.
Another thing I could foresee happening would be that packagers, like Ste, could get the source from developers and upload it to iTunes. That way many free applications can be posted under one $99/year fee.
Not sure what would prevent this, unless it's in the EULA as well. I'm sure there's a clause somewhere to block it.
So Apple is going to be trying to actively prevent application distribution outside the App Store?

That's disappointing. But surely there's a way for developers to install their applications on their own phones indefinitely? If that's the case, couldn't people get around the App Store requirement by distributing their apps as open source/free software, so anyone can appear to be the 'developer' from the phone's perspective?
It's probably ok to put the source on SourceForge or something. Binary distributions on iTunes.

ChrisA

Mar 6, 2008, 10:29 PM

So now how likely are people to provide free apps if they have to cough up 100 a year? Will they just rely on donations? Ad money from their site?

If you are writing software as a hobby what might happen is that one $99 account might get used by a large group of developers. Bussiness will do the same they might hire a dozen developers and would need only one $99 acount for all of their products.

Botton line is that the $99 price is not per application or per developer. It is per organization.

emptyCup

Mar 6, 2008, 11:37 PM

Another thing I could foresee happening would be that packagers, like Ste, could get the source from developers and upload it to iTunes. That way many free applications can be posted under one $99/year fee.

That's true but the packager would have to trust all the developers or review the code themselves. The $99 includes a certificate to digitally sign every app. Any malicious app. gets traced back to the packager screwing everyone in the group. It is still a good idea for small groups.

Look at it this way: if you just want to put your own private app.s on your own phone, the $99 lets you do that. There is no need to distribute it. If you do distribute it, the $99 protects me from malware, crapware, abandonedware and stuff whose own authors don't think a hundred or so people (out of millions) would pay for. Either way, I don't think it is a bad deal.

jersena

Mar 7, 2008, 12:10 AM

I am really excited to see what comes of the SDK but like many others have said, why would you put a free app up if you have to pay money to do so. That makes not sense at all.

I understand that it is Apple's servers, bandwidth and all that but it is also making their phone that much better. I am sure there will be some killer or much needed app that could lead to someone buy the iPhone.

Do you think there will be a way to get a self developed app on your own phone cause I am sure people will make something that is just for them.

notjustjay

Mar 7, 2008, 12:25 AM

Look at it this way: if you just want to put your own private app.s on your own phone, the $99 lets you do that. There is no need to distribute it. If you do distribute it, the $99 protects me from malware, crapware, abandonedware and stuff whose own authors don't think a hundred or so people (out of millions) would pay for. Either way, I don't think it is a bad deal.

Ok, but... if I want to write a custom little app that solves a little problem I have, and I install it on my phone and nobody ever uses it but me, I still have to pay $99?

jmmo20

Mar 7, 2008, 01:35 AM

Ok, but... if I want to write a custom little app that solves a little problem I have, and I install it on my phone and nobody ever uses it but me, I still have to pay $99?

Nope because with Xcode you can install such app in your own phone for testing purposes.

What brings back the idea of freeware apps being distributed as Xcode packages.. you could download the project, build it and copy it to your own iphone without going through the App Store. This could be an alternative distribution pathway...

arn

Mar 7, 2008, 01:40 AM

Nope because with Xcode you can install such app in your own phone for testing purposes.
.

This is incorrect. Xcode will not install an app onto your own phone for testing purposes unless you are a $99/year iPhone developer.

Otherwise, you are limited to the iPhone Simulator for testing.

arn

radsense

Mar 7, 2008, 02:24 AM

I wonder how Apple and AppStore is going to deal with Trialware applications. Will AppStore allows you to download and install any application, so the user can try the app and eventually register and pay for it.

I have no idea how they are thinking about handling this. This is very common with Palm and Windows Mobile software developers.

I hope they have thought about this...

Thanks,

Marcio Castilho
RADSense Software Inc.
www.radsense.com

boz0

Mar 7, 2008, 02:39 AM

Tosser

Mar 7, 2008, 03:19 AM

Eraserhead

Mar 7, 2008, 06:35 AM

Botton line is that the $99 price is not per application or per developer. It is per organization.

Apple are also handling the marketing/security for the application so I can set up a nominal charge of say $1-$2 to cover my costs, and most people who would use the app would pay the small fee to get to download it.

yoman

Mar 7, 2008, 07:42 AM

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A102 Safari/419.3)

I wonder how Apple and AppStore is going to deal with Trialware applications. Will AppStore allows you to download and install any application, so the user can try the app and eventually register and pay for it.

I have no idea how they are thinking about handling this. This is very common with Palm and Windows Mobile software developers.

I hope they have thought about this...

Thanks,

Marcio Castilho
RADSense Software Inc.
www.radsense.com

That is an important point. I also wonder if they have thought of this.

spazzcat

Mar 7, 2008, 07:49 AM

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A102 Safari/419.3)

That is an important point. I also wonder if they have thought of this.

There would be two version. One is a free download and one is a paid download.

overanalyzer

Mar 7, 2008, 08:36 AM

There would be two version. One is a free download and one is a paid download.

That would be a bit of a pain, though, vs. the norm of being able to download a full-featured trial with a time limit and then enter a serial number to unlock it.

thuff13

Mar 7, 2008, 11:43 AM

Reminds me of all those people going "Well, when the SDK comes, it will all bo so ******* fantastic!"
Oh, and not to mention someone quoting SJ as saying "If you wan't XX on your phone, write the app" –*He just forgot to mention the thirty percent cut they take and the 99 dollar cash advance.
Actually, the 30 percent cut is more like a 42 (!!!) percent VAT:

If the developer needs to get an income of 10 dollar per sold app, it has to be sold at more than 14 dollars (divide and multiply to your hearts content). That's way more than cost or trouble. That's scimming the cream.

Do you have any idea how retail stores work? Do you think that Wal-Mart sells products for other companies for free? No, they buy products at wholesale prices and then mark them up to whatever they want. I do not know what Wal-Mart's markup is, but I work retail and our ideal markup is 50%. A 30% margin is not very good for us.

Apple is just doing it a little differently. Instead of the developer picking the wholesale price and then letting Apple sell it for whatever they want, the developer gets to choose the retail price. I think that is a good thing for the developer.

You also have to think of all the costs for Apple to run the App Store. First they had to pay somebody (or a group of people) to develop the store. Then there is store upkeep. If they just had one person who's responsibility it is to maintain the store and they only paid that person minimum wage, it would cost them $16,640 in wages alone (CA minimum wage was just raised to $8/hr). I really doubt that they are going to pay that person minimum wage and they may need more than one person. They will also being paying employees to review apps. Then there is the server space and the bandwidth. None of this stuff is free. On top of all that there is also a credit card fee the credit card companies charge for every transaction. These are not small fees. In fact, these charges are getting so bad that my store is talking about passing that fee to customers by charging a fee to use a credit card. I really don't think they will make much of a profit, if any off of the app store.

dasmb

Mar 7, 2008, 01:39 PM

I'm sure a lot of folks are going to be put off by the $99 registration fee, and I think that's a good thing. Apple's original objection that you don't want third party applications on your phone was silly, but their reasoning behind it -- that you don't want BAD applications on your phone, leaking memory, stealing processor time or just crashing frequently -- was sound. I was jailbroken for a while, and found a great majority of the applications were perfunctory, buggy or just plain dumb.

A $99 fee is just high enough to discourage developers from applying just to port random apps to the iPhone without polishing and testing them, but not so high that those with really good ideas would be discouraged. It encourages responsibility by removing anonymity.

It's also encouragement to flesh out applications prior to sticking them on the network. I'm a developer with experience working on the Macintosh (Java) and also with mobile devices (Windows Mobile), but not a whole lot working with Objective C or Cocoa. I have a handful of ideas, but none of them is at the point where they're worth $99. It's a fee I am willing to pay, but not until I have a deliverable product.

You do get an awful lot for $99 & 30% off the top. Access to a stable distribution platform that seamlessly handles installs, updates, payments, prevents piracy, and even does some of your marketing is of high value. Do you think you can get on Xbox Live Marketplace for less than that? What about the various mobile application libraries offered by Sprint, Verizon et al? I saw somebody mention Sourceforge, and that's a bad comparison. For one thing, SF won't allow you to host your non-OSS applications on Sourceforge; it's maintained by, essentially, donations made under contract to support the OSS movement. Commercial applications require a different version of the SF software, which is very expensive. For the power user or developer interested in version control and openness, who knows their software configuration needs and is willing to manage them, SF is the answer. That's not the case here.

As for the dev kit itself, it's probably the most impressive thing I've ever seen. 2.2 GB of development tools and a library of downloadable how-to videos for free? The barrier to get started is nearly zero (aside from the syntax of Objective C, which for a refugee from strongly typed languages is quite alien).

My gripe is that those of us who are members of the ADC should have been given a discount at least.

notjustjay

Mar 7, 2008, 02:08 PM

I'm sure a lot of folks are going to be put off by the $99 registration fee, and I think that's a good thing.
...
I found a great majority of the applications were perfunctory, buggy or just plain dumb.

A $99 fee is just high enough to discourage developers from applying just to port random apps to the iPhone without polishing and testing them, but not so high that those with really good ideas would be discouraged.
...
It's a fee I am willing to pay, but not until I have a deliverable product.

Thank you. This is exactly how I feel about the situation, except that initially I thought it was a one-time $99 instead of $99/yearly. I am less in agreement with a yearly fee model, though I suppose I can see Apple's perspective. If you're not willing to support your app to the tune of continuing to pay your $99/year, then Apple can be proactive about removing it from the App store before it becomes yet another abandoned app. Certainly I've had my share of many great OS X apps that were abandoned and no longer work properly on newer Macs (on Intel, or Leopard, or whatever). I can understand them not wanting this to happen on the iPhone.

I think overall this is a really neat time. I remember back in 1995, when I was in high school and the "world wide web" was still new, I wanted to tackle a (then) niche market -- I wanted to write a book about HTML and making websites, aimed at students, written by students. My draft manuscript was up to 200 pages and I was consulting with known local authors, but I encountered hurdle after hurdle and ultimately it was costing me too much time and money to continue. Besides which, the "big brands" (Teach Yourself..., ... For Dummies) had much more power than I ever could have and they quickly flooded the market with these sorts of books. Today, any kid can publish stuff on their own website, and in Google's eyes it is all equal opportunity.

I go to Youtube to learn how to jailbreak my iPod, and find that I'm being taught step by step... by a 13-year-old. Such is the world we now live in.

Now the exact same thing is happening with software, but this time the playing field is totally level and the cost of entry is lower than ever.

I do wish there was some provision to install something on my own phone or in the phones of my circles of friends or family, for example, without also having to pay the fee. I guess for that there's always the web-based route.

AlphaBob

Mar 7, 2008, 02:14 PM

Has anybody had success actually logging in to apply for the 2.0 ?

I keep getting a not found and error 404

And it's starting to tick me off.

I just did. I got into the iPhone Development page then clicked on the upper-right corner (where it talked about the development program). That allowed me to indicate that I was applying as an individual for the $99 program. Nothing else was entered and the screen said they would be in touch. From what I understand they will roll those things out slowly starting in the US only.

I'll keep my fingers crossed that it will give me the ability to test on the actual hardare soon.

AlphaBob

Mar 7, 2008, 02:29 PM

Wow,

Judging from the complaints I've been reading about the $99 fee to be able to post apps on the iTunes App Store, I can bet many of the posters are high school or college age and have no concept of how much money it takes to support yourself in the real world (rent, food, clothing, transportation, etc.). This lack of real-world experience is resulting in a lack of understanding of what it takes to market a product and what is reasonable overhead in the business world.

A 30% overhead rate (what Apple skims off the top) is extreemly reasonable. Apple has to provide internet access, servers (lots of big huge power hungry boxes), staff, rent, insurance, etc. to operate iTunes. I would be surprised if their overhead rate wasn't almost exactly that high. (I ran a small $15 million dollar high-tech business for a number of years and our overhead rate was 28%). So Apple is essentially charging the developer exactly what it costs Apple to do something. That is darned generous.

The same applies to the $99 fee to get a seat at the table. That is VERY reasonable too, and for the same reasons. Heck, my internet access is costing me three times that per year, and I'd have to add hosting on top of that.

Bottom line is if you don't think you can write an app that will pay for the $99 annual fee and 30% off the top, then you are wasting your time, or it is just a hobby (and nothing wrong with that).

samab

Mar 7, 2008, 03:08 PM

A 30% overhead rate (what Apple skims off the top) is extreemly reasonable. Apple has to provide internet access, servers (lots of big huge power hungry boxes), staff, rent, insurance, etc. to operate iTunes. I would be surprised if their overhead rate wasn't almost exactly that high. (I ran a small $15 million dollar high-tech business for a number of years and our overhead rate was 28%). So Apple is essentially charging the developer exactly what it costs Apple to do something. That is darned generous.

The same applies to the $99 fee to get a seat at the table. That is VERY reasonable too, and for the same reasons. Heck, my internet access is costing me three times that per year, and I'd have to add hosting on top of that.

Compare to desktop apps --- 30% revenue share may not be much. But you have to compare it with other mobile phone platforms. To get on the deck of Nokia, Qualcomm and DoCoMo --- the developers gets a bigger cut of the revenue share.

Mind you, certification fees may be higher for the platforms --- but that's higher fixed costs.

AlphaBob

Mar 7, 2008, 03:27 PM

Compare to desktop apps --- 30% revenue share may not be much. But you have to compare it with other mobile phone platforms. To get on the deck of Nokia, Qualcomm and DoCoMo --- the developers gets a bigger cut of the revenue share.

Mind you, certification fees may be higher for the platforms --- but that's higher fixed costs.

OK, I have ZERO experience with the handset makers like Nokia/Qualcomm, but I don't understand what that has to do with anything. When you buy a game for your phone it comes from the carrier like T-Mobile or Sprint, not Nokia. I'd be hard pressed to believe that when T-Mobile sells Bejewled for $6 the developer is getting anywhere close to 70% of that money. T-Mobile isn't a magic company. Their overhead figures have to be close to the 30% figure too. Given that they state substantial profit comes from selling games and ringtones, that makes me expect the cut to the application developer is much less than 70% for T-Mobile to make any money.

But I haven't dealt with T-Mobile or Sprint, so I don't know. If you have let us know because that would be valuable experience to share!!

aristobrat

Mar 7, 2008, 03:36 PM

AlphaBob

Mar 7, 2008, 03:43 PM

Anyone remember Handango? I guess anyone who's owned a smartphone in the last decade probably does.

Here are their fees for hosting developer applications in their store:

Less than $250,000 in gross revenue: 50%
$250,001 - $1,000,000 in gross revenue: 60%
$1,000,001+ in gross revenue: 70%

http://www.boygeniusreport.com/2008/02/16/handango-revises-cda-says-screw-you-to-developers/

Ah, fantastic !! Good solid data! Thank you!!! (Now I've exceeded my "!" mark quota for the day).

So small app developers will get 50%. And you can see that the biggest seller gets 70% (which again plays to that 30% overhead figure).

ChrisA

Mar 7, 2008, 04:52 PM

So Apple is going to be trying to actively prevent application distribution outside the App Store?

That's disappointing. But surely there's a way for developers to install their applications on their own phones indefinitely? If that's the case, couldn't people get around the App Store requirement by distributing their apps as open source/free software, so anyone can appear to be the 'developer' from the phone's perspective?

If it were possable for developer to install apps on their own phone then those apps could be distribed outside of the App Store. So I doubt it will be possable to install even on your own phone.

The 2.0 firmware might even use strong encryption to enforce this. I'd not be surprised if Apple did that.

dasmb

Mar 7, 2008, 05:33 PM

It's unlikely that there will not, within the next few weeks or months, be some manner of installer developers can use to test their own application(s). I don't believe Apple expects developers to produce an application and put it up on the store before they can test it on its target platform.

However, it's just as likely that these applications will be very special -- perhaps with an executable signed to only operate on a certain SIM, etc. It's highly unlikely this mechanism could be used to copy or modify applications downloaded from the store or compiled by others. I suppose there'd be a possibility to distribute source code, which others could compile and sign, I just don't see a lot of value in this.

overanalyzer

Mar 7, 2008, 05:44 PM

If it were possable for developer to install apps on their own phone then those apps could be distribed outside of the App Store. So I doubt it will be possable to install even on your own phone.

The 2.0 firmware might even use strong encryption to enforce this. I'd not be surprised if Apple did that.

It's unlikely that there will not, within the next few weeks or months, be some manner of installer developers can use to test their own application(s). I don't believe Apple expects developers to produce an application and put it up on the store before they can test it on its target platform.

However, it's just as likely that these applications will be very special -- perhaps with an executable signed to only operate on a certain SIM, etc. It's highly unlikely this mechanism could be used to copy or modify applications downloaded from the store or compiled by others. I suppose there'd be a possibility to distribute source code, which others could compile and sign, I just don't see a lot of value in this.

You can do testing on your iPhone, you just have to have the certificate that costs $99/year and then you can load them via the regular dock, and use the remote monitoring they demoed yesterday.

Loge

Mar 7, 2008, 05:45 PM

I just did. I got into the iPhone Development page then clicked on the upper-right corner (where it talked about the development program). That allowed me to indicate that I was applying as an individual for the $99 program. Nothing else was entered and the screen said they would be in touch. From what I understand they will roll those things out slowly starting in the US only.

I'll keep my fingers crossed that it will give me the ability to test on the actual hardare soon.

And if it doesn't (because of limited numbers or whatever) then you've pretty much wasted your time? For those not in the US it may be even more of a guessing game.

notjustjay

Mar 8, 2008, 03:26 PM

So small app developers will get 50%. And you can see that the biggest seller gets 70% (which again plays to that 30% overhead figure).

No! You misread! That 70% is what THEY take! YOU, the developer, get 30%!

To reiterate: if you sold your wares with Handango, YOU receive 50% of the revenue if you're small-time, and YOU receive only 30% if you're big enough that they think they deserve an even bigger cut. After all, you wouldn't be so big if it weren't for their help in the first place, right?

... Now does that make Apple's plan sound a little more fair?

samab

Mar 8, 2008, 04:14 PM

OK, I have ZERO experience with the handset makers like Nokia/Qualcomm, but I don't understand what that has to do with anything. When you buy a game for your phone it comes from the carrier like T-Mobile or Sprint, not Nokia. I'd be hard pressed to believe that when T-Mobile sells Bejewled for $6 the developer is getting anywhere close to 70% of that money. T-Mobile isn't a magic company. Their overhead figures have to be close to the 30% figure too. Given that they state substantial profit comes from selling games and ringtones, that makes me expect the cut to the application developer is much less than 70% for T-Mobile to make any money.

But I haven't dealt with T-Mobile or Sprint, so I don't know. If you have let us know because that would be valuable experience to share!!

I don't have any experience either.

But how much the platform pays to the developers is directly proportional to the number of quality and quantity of apps and games available to the platform.

There are a lot of premium priced games on the Get It Now --- $12 for a mobile phone game.

http://products.vzw.com/index.aspx?id=games_details&appId=6397

specops

Mar 9, 2008, 07:37 PM

To sum up:

- iTunes App Store to browse, purchase and download iPhone apps
- Developers set the price and get 70% of revenue. Apple keeps 30% for their costs.
- Applications must be approved by Apple and apps are available exclusively through the App Store
- No charge to distribute free applications, but you still have to pay the $99/year fee.

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2008/03/06/99-year-developer-fee-to-publish-applications/)
I'm not sure if anybody asked this yet but i was watching the SDK conference and jobs said " if the app is free you don't have to pay to host it" (not his exact quote but you get the idea)

So is the $99 to just join the dev club or did one of us misunderstand jobs
regarding the price to publish free apps

aristobrat

Mar 9, 2008, 07:45 PM

The $99 is a yearly fee to be able to publish your applications. There are no other costs that I've read.

wizard

Mar 9, 2008, 09:28 PM

I am really excited to see what comes of the SDK but like many others have said, why would you put a free app up if you have to pay money to do so. That makes not sense at all.

Well considering if you self host you will spend nearly as much money I don't think it is a big problem. Sure the cost is right in your face, but it is less than $10 a month and where can you find commercial hosting for that price? If you go with space on one of the consumer accounts you will still be using a good chunk of change.

The smart thing here though is to simply charger a nominal amount, say a buck. Unless you have a totally useless program you should get enough interest out of 10 million users to clear $99.

I understand that it is Apple's servers, bandwidth and all that but it is also making their phone that much better.

Well form many a users point of view a bunch of new half baked apps won't make iPhone that much better. But as you point out there are issues of cost that have to be dealt with. There is no free lunch.

I am sure there will be some killer or much needed app that could lead to someone buy the iPhone.

There is no question in my mind either. The thing is if there is an app that justifies the iPhones costs, then that app also has value.

Do you think there will be a way to get a self developed app on your own phone cause I am sure people will make something that is just for them.

This is something that just isn't clear to me. I could see this as a significant request. I have ideas for both home and work, some you simply would not want to distribute through a third party.

Dave

wizard

Mar 9, 2008, 09:57 PM

Hi Guys;

I've read through this thread and frankly I'm surprised that many of you are having issues with this program. Frankly I think it is fantastic.

First the $99 cost. Guys there will be close to 10 milliion users by the end of the year, you should be able to find a price point to pay for your outlay and likely some other expenses. If you have an app that costs $2 buck you should be able to easily cover that just in people doing random downloads. The smart operator though will make sure he can cover taxes, wear and tear on his computer and a host of other costs including uncle Sam.

Note too that is just the iPhone half of the equation, if you factor in all the Touch users already out there you have a huge potential market.

Second the 30%, that is a absolute bargain considering what you are getting for it. Sure it means getting out the old pencil and slide rule to figure out the optimal price for your app but hey that is business. Look at ti this way what would happen if you had to pay for all the bandwidth you used, the accounts with the credit card companies, the maintenance of the web store and what ever else. It would be expensive but more so a drain on yourself and a big distraction.

*****************************************************

Now some of you may have seen my handle on here before expressing my dissatisfaction with Apple an MWSF this year. In many ways they debuted a lot of what I consider junk. So it is not like I'm a rabid Apple fan, but this program could very well turn me into one. Apple is giving a lot of people a huge opportunity here. HUGE!!!

Dave

Boghog

Mar 10, 2008, 12:04 PM

Couldn't you cheat Apple out of their 30% if you offered a free demo app which required the user to enter an activation key to unlock its full functionality and then sold those keys over some web site?
Probably they'll have something in the license agreements to prevent that.

Rodimus Prime

Mar 10, 2008, 07:24 PM

Looks like apple is getting greedy. Apple does not want free apps to hit the market. They want to collect money off everything made so they charge enough to stop the people who would want to make free apps from doing so but not enough to turn off the people who want to make money.

Apple is turning more and more into Microsoft every day.

dejo

Mar 10, 2008, 07:45 PM

They want to collect money off everything made so they charge enough to stop the people who would want to make free apps from doing so but not enough to turn off the people who want to make money.
Or perhaps they want to stop many of the people who are just developing lots of "me-too" apps and not really serious about the whole matter by charging the $99? I doubt the SDK-download servers would've been hammered so bad had Apple charged a fee for the SDK or even instituted a more extensive registration/approval process.

boz0

Mar 11, 2008, 08:00 AM

Or perhaps they want to stop many of the people who are just developing lots of "me-too" apps and not really serious about the whole matter by charging the $99? I doubt the SDK-download servers would've been hammered so bad had Apple charged a fee for the SDK or even instituted a more extensive registration/approval process.

They're a company. They're interested in making money, not "protecting" their consumers from low-grade apps.

Which means, for the time being, that Open Source/Free Software will continue to run only on jailbroken devices.

atropos

Mar 12, 2008, 12:24 AM

overanalyzer

Mar 12, 2008, 12:34 AM

I m thinking to join it... somehow, I live in canada... just wonder will Apple send the check to Canada :p lol...... because in theory, iPhone is not available in Canada.... so how can people develop it without iPhone?:eek:

Didn't they say the App Store was going to be US-only at launch, adding other countries ASAP thereafter?

CommodityFetish

Mar 12, 2008, 10:37 AM

I wonder if and how easily you can change the price of your app? So if you just wanted to cover your $99 fee, you could drop the price to $0 after you'd made that much from it (for that year...).

It would be great if Apple would use some of their 30% to automate that -- you click a checkbox when you set the price for your app, and then apple does the rest.

And let's be honest, if Apple was really just covering their expenses, they would cap their own take on any given app at some fixed amount -- and/or reduce their percentage cut as sales increase until it reaches the small trickle that it requires to maintain the app on their servers. (And yes, I know that's not how businesses tend to operate, which is my point. I'd bet Apple will be making a lot more than just breaking even/covering costs.)

I wonder what Apple's % of music sales through iTunes is?

Pooling many developer's apps under one developer organization/account sounds like a great idea.