That's exactly what I told her and that Apple already makes more than enough profit with their over-priced hardware
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
App Store Developer Payout Hits $50 Billion, July Sets Record as Biggest Month Ever
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Wow. Thanks for your insights on this. Appreciate it. Certainly an interesting space.
I completely missed the discussion about Wide Color-enabled at WWDC, so will check that out also.
Thanks.
[doublepost=1470301559][/doublepost]
Thanks for that analysis of the job creation aspects.
[doublepost=1470301527][/doublepost]
The difference is transparency. People prefer to walk around with their eyes open instead of being closed.
The only thing easier with math is having Siri do it for you
Me: Siri, what is Apple share of that 50 billion dollar developer payout?
Siri: Let me search the web on that.
Steve said back in 1999 that he was going to make the Mac the best gaming platform in the world. His understanding of the game market was about as profound as Tim Cook's creativity though, so that never happened. (There are a number of sad stories that followed that original statement, from Halo not becoming a Mac first game (Bungie being bought up by MS), Half-Life not coming to the Mac, OpenGL development stalling out, graphics losing priority in Hardware up to today, where the Hardware is so slow and the Software is so obsolete, that Oculus halted any Mac VR development.
With iOS an tvOS they however have an incredible opportunity to make iOS the biggest game platform on the planet. Unfortunately their understanding of the gaming market is still nonexistant (prominently displayed by the botched Apple TV4 release with the remote operation requirement that pretty much killed the original game offer that could have helped make the platform viable (there was no "halo"-game on launch, pun intended). By now, I have lost faith in Apple ever getting to understand that the gaming market is a multibillion marketthat they are in an ideal position to dominate, if they can supply the necessary hard- and software to developers and gamers alike.
But the potential is there, so having 80% turnover from games is not a bad thing per se, in fact it's a good thing, if you had the brains to properly cater for the gaming market.
With iOS an tvOS they however have an incredible opportunity to make iOS the biggest game platform on the planet. Unfortunately their understanding of the gaming market is still nonexistant (prominently displayed by the botched Apple TV4 release with the remote operation requirement that pretty much killed the original game offer that could have helped make the platform viable (there was no "halo"-game on launch, pun intended). By now, I have lost faith in Apple ever getting to understand that the gaming market is a multibillion marketthat they are in an ideal position to dominate, if they can supply the necessary hard- and software to developers and gamers alike.
But the potential is there, so having 80% turnover from games is not a bad thing per se, in fact it's a good thing, if you had the brains to properly cater for the gaming market.
Apple isn't chasing figures, it's making huge amounts of money, any comp at would wish to be able to generate even a small amount of the income Apple generates.
You, me and everyone else here knows nothing about the products Apple have in development. If you really think they are spending tens of millions on hardware development, engineers, designers, programmers etc just to make watch straps and annoy people waiting for a laptop you are deluded. Just because a product isn't on the shelf or on the infamous pokemonandwatchstraprumous.com doesn't mean it isn't being developed.
I don't like small updates, I don't want a new laptop released every few months with something slitly changed, I want new products. You probably differ, but you are not getting what you want. You can go and buy many products from many different companies, Apple doesn't owe anybody anything, they are simply a company that makes products and sells services like many others, it just so happens they have a fan base. If the fans are bored of them they should all leave. If Apple don't like that they can chase after them, but I'm confident they won't, just as I'm confident the fans won't go anywhere.
Nobody is leaving, even if they do its a small amount, there are vocal people on here but we are hardly average Apple users, we are on a forum, that's not normal. Apple will be developing products, they won't ever be good enough of course, you can't please die hard fans, it's not possible.
What is clear though Apple is making money, they know how to do it better than pretty much anyone else. Some of their products don't make as much profit as others when you remove the development costs, it's a lot more profitable to let developers make apps and Apple take a cut for example than build laptops what people will moan about. Part of me wouldn't be surprised if they stopped some areas of their business that were once seen as core. That won't please people either, but there you go.
The fact so many forget is Apple exists to make money. You identify that they have an incredible focus on the bottom line (any business that doesn't won't be in business for long and isn't maximising profit), Apple have a duty to do this to their shareholders, the people who own the business, they have to make profit and work very hard to identify the best way to do that. Some people don't want them to worry about profit and instead want them churning out endless updates to products they obviously don't feel they need to update as quickly as some users want. That's just how it is. Your options are wait or go elsewhere, but I don't see why you think moaning about it will help.
I don't get it either, but for $10million a day I'd happily have it as my little niche business!
Why? If you have something to say tell people or don't, not sure why you feel the need to get people searching and reading just to fuel your own paranoid ego.
Indeed it never happened, I do wonder if it was more about games consoles being so big that they realised it just wasn't worth chasing. Computers will never replace consoles for gaming, it's a battle they didn't need to take on. Mobile gaming however, that hasn't done so badly for them.
Also, I wouldn't say anyone ever thought Tim Cook was employed for his creativity. That's not his job, I doubt it's in his job description. Tim has many skills, creativity isn't one I'd guess, but I don't think it needs to be.
Sure, TC. But how did Mac sales go in July?
[doublepost=1470315260][/doublepost]
Of course creativity is part of a CEO's job. That is why they are at the helm -- to chart new ways for a company to grow, to manufacture faster, cheaper, more efficiently, to surprise in a good way. Companies have entire departments for public relations and accounting. What do you think TC's role as head of Apple is suppose to be? Smiling face that travels the world and says "amazing" in 10 different languages?
[doublepost=1470315260][/doublepost]
Of course creativity is part of a CEO's job. That is why they are at the helm -- to chart new ways for a company to grow, to manufacture faster, cheaper, more efficiently, to surprise in a good way. Companies have entire departments for public relations and accounting. What do you think TC's role as head of Apple is suppose to be? Smiling face that travels the world and says "amazing" in 10 different languages?
It's not like that at all my man. Was just an interesting bit of knowledge and info, just wanted to share.
I didn't feel like I needed to spell the whole story line out on macruomrs for those that expected everything to be handed to them.
lol paranoid ego
I think that Apple's $100 a year dev membership requirement makes the environment worse for hobbyists than in the past or with other platforms.
Back in the Windows Mobile, Palm OS, Flash and Java ME days, you could distribute a free app without having to pony up any money to pay some manufacturer's (e.g. Apple!) store to host. And it was good forever.
With Apple's App Store and its locked walled garden, that ability was lost. Worse, if you stop paying the $100 a year, your app is removed from visibility in the Apple store.
So, whereas you used to be able to make friends/family hobbyist apps for free, even a simple family iOS app would've cost a hobbyist about $700 since 2008 to keep their app available in the only app store that is allowed by Apple.
Last edited:
You're right. Let's give the reins to you and see how long the company lasts....hold on let me sell my stock first....
You kept alluding to it, in the amount of posts you mentioned it you could have highlighted it at least! I don't do teasers, I like people to share stuff - if you've read so,eying and can give an overview to share with others don't you think that would be better than hoping people will go and read it when most won't?
[doublepost=1470328376][/doublepost]
Leading, decision making, advising, supporting, hiring (and firing), empowering, being an ambassador, problem solving, negotiating. Just a few roles. A creative is someone in design, development, they don't generally want to lead the company. I don't see why Tim Cook would be the one needing to come up with new products and deciding how they look, that's really not his job. Just because Steve Jobs had ideas and wanted to get involved with product development hat was more about ego. To be fair many people think Steve was all about that side, the fact so many feel he was a terrible people person says a lot.
A good CEO will surround him or herself with the very best team of people able to do the very best job. Their main role is to build, develop and empower an amazing team and support them through the good times and the bad, handle the issues, solve the problems, get the deals done.
I think the confusion may be that in some organisations the CEO started the company and hey may be very creative. The fact they lead the business and have the CEO titles doesn't mean they are best suited to the job, but they own the business, who's going to stop them?
In the world of big corporate business creative people wanting to sit in the CEO seat are rare. I guess you could put Richard Branson there, but he's more about creating service, changing what already exists, he hasn't invented anything, he doesn't design anything, he isn't a product man, he just sees business areas where he thinks he can do a better job.
Let's start a list of creative CEOs where they didn't found the company, they have been brought in to run the organisation. I don't have any to start you off with I'm afraid, feel free to start the list.
Pretty irrelevant post. There are millions of people who have an easy way to develop and sell their IP, who didn't have that before. Can you realistically deny that? Hint: No, you can't.
It's also changed the landscape of buying software. Years ago, if I needed a niche app for my computer I could search forums and web search tools for one. If I was lucky enough to find one that served my needs I could download it via shareware or pay $30-$60 or more, and hope that it ran well enough on my machine, didn't have back door exploits built in, and that the developer kept it up to date. Now I can get an app to meet nearly any need, large or small for either a very low price or free.
As far as hobbyists are concerned, there are ways to get your apps on friends' and family's units without going through the App Store.
The need for some to make something negative out of what was a revolution is mystifying to me. The App Store is not some hobbyist, open source playground. It's a store. Notice it's in the name. Apple uses it (quite brilliantly) to do two things: Make money on the software side, and sell hardware. I will not argue that they are some altruistic non-profit. But only a true Apple hater would deny that the App Store was a revolution.
P.S. Where do you come up with the $1500 figure? $99 a year * 7 years is $693.
I didn't try to. Do not put words in my mouth.
I was only responding to the claim that it was more "egalitarian", which it is not, for reasons ranging from censorship to costs, especially for hobbyists.
I agree that it has been a boon for consumers, since an app's price is often nothing. That's not so great for many developers.
Sorry, brain glitch. Was interrupted by a call with some bad news. Thanks for the correction.
That's still ridiculously more than your hypothetical 12 year old girl programmer can afford. For hobbyist purposes, she'd be better off developing on say, Android, and mailing the app to her friends to sideload. No jailbreaking or other hacks needed. And no cost.
Now sure, if she made something amazing that was intended to, and could actually make money, then a major app store is the way to go. Of course, her app would have to be discoverable among the million other apps.
The other common complaint these days is that the moment someone does come up with something worthwhile, a dozen clones show up shortly afterwards and the original developer's revenue drops like a rock.
So a bigger app store cuts both ways.
Last edited:
No. Your definition of creative is way too narrow. The above is just one aspect. Successfully leading a company requires enormous creativity. It's not learned from a text book or color-by-numbers as someone who has never attended B-School might think. All the B-school case studies that students examine revolve around entrepreneurs and imaginative executives who thought of new approaches to business problems.
Executives that don't posses creativity are dismissively referred to as "suits," or "empty suits" because all they do is color by numbers and take orders -- nothing to them but their clothing. Basically they are worker bees, followers, drones, the opposite of leadership.
Maybe we are talking around the same thing and just not agreeing on the terminology. As far as I'm concerned there's a difference between problem solving and having a creative approach to business and coming up with a new product or colour scheme. I have recently retired as CEO for a charity, although I'm being headhunter by two organisations at the moment. I'd laugh if anyone called me a 'suit' - I've not worn a 'suit' in 20 years, and I certainly never went to 'B-school' or learnt my trade from books. Who would a CEO 'suit' be taking orders from? I guess the board, and I guess it does happen in some organisations, although I've not seen it in any significant organisation. If it did that would be their career over, once out where would they go?
By very definition a CEO is a leader, not a follower - if I hadn't taken the lead nothing would have happened. I had a board of Trustees but they didn't tel me whatnot do, I was answerable to them, I had to report to them, but they never dictated, they took my lead, they gave me freedom to do as I needed to take the organisation where it needed to go. I was successful and I'm wanted because I do things differently, I was able to save money from areas others hadn't been able, and I was able to develop the organisation into areas others had failed. That is creativity but I always had a marketing team, a web developer, and a designer as I could never get that stuff right. So no, I'm not creative, I have business creativity, they are two very different things.
Tim Cook has it, he's taken the organisation in different directions, new areas, the easy option would be to have done the same old thing. But I still don't think he needs to be able to design or develop a product, he has people who do that, he will be part of the process but he will know when to back off and leave them to do their job.
If leading a company/organisation successfully requires creativity then either I have it and didn't realise it, I got lucky, or it doesn't. My definition of the word is based on the comment I replied to. It implied Steve Jobss had it and Tim Cook doesn't. I assumed (possibly incorrectly) from the post that they were talking about ideas for products. I have never made a physical object in my life - not that I'd be proud of anyway - and I can't cook, draw, write poetry, choose a colour scheme and many other things. I can lead an organisation and develop strategy, policy, people, projects, ideas and make something from nothing in that context.
I just felt the original post was talking about coming up with new products - Steve Jobs was famous for having his name on many patents and wanted people to think many of the products were from his mind, if not his hands.
I also don't think the best way to learn how to lead an organisation is through books and lectures at university. I believe you learn through experience, you work your way through an organisation, if you've got it you will get where you want to go, if you haven't you won't. You can't churn out a mini army of future leaders through university, I've seen many graduates think they were the nations future leaders who struggled to tie their shoes. Leaders are not made over a few years, their skills are developed throughout a career in different departments, making mistakes, learning from others, experiencing a range of opportunities. I'm sure some great people can and do come out of a business degree (that's what we would call it in the UK), but the majority will find they are just perfect for a career in sales or middle management.
As I said we may be talking about different aspects of creativity, but as far as I'm concerned the creativity comment I responded to was about product development and ideas, not something I could do and not something I believe Tim Cook could do. In the same way I wouldn't want the fantastic product developers who create Apples products (I Dont believe Jonny Ive comes up with everything, he decides what a product looks like) to lead Apple, and I wouldn't put Ive up there either - developing products is different to leading a company.