Apple Accepting iPhone Apps Into App Store

[SirOmega]

Yea I figure...

$5 = $35,000 for 10,000 copies and $350,000 for 100,000 copies sold
$3 = $21,000 for 10,000 copies and $210,000 for 100,000 copies sold

And I bet that by the end of 2008 there will be 20M iPhones worldwide, plus an unknown number of touches (probably another 15M if not more). 10,000 units is only 0.03% of that figure. Very tiny amount!

Now if only I could get my dev cert!

 

[know-it-all5]

Yea I figure...

$5 = $35,000 for 10,000 copies and $350,000 for 100,000 copies sold
$3 = $21,000 for 10,000 copies and $210,000 for 100,000 copies sold

And I bet that by the end of 2008 there will be 20M iPhones worldwide, plus an unknown number of touches (probably another 15M if not more). 10,000 units is only 0.03% of that figure. Very tiny amount!

Now if only I could get my dev cert!

With hopes that high, I hope you've got some great apps.

In all seriousness though, I wish you and all the other developers good luck If you make some good apps, I will buy.

 

[Veri]

some person behind the curtain supposedly approves them. Somehow.

And there couldn't be a better reason to avoid developing for the iPhone.

Consider that you've just spent months writing an excellent app. Now, since Apple hasn't made clear criteria for acceptance, it could be based on the UI, it could be based on performance, or, most insidiously, it could be based on whether they think it's going to be a threat to current or future revenue streams. This latter could mean that apps that were approved one day, are rejected the next. If I try to distribute my "unapproved" app other than on iTunes, I might have my cert revoked.

So.. should I implement a jailbreaker that allows users to download any further apps unsigned from 3rd party locations, will it be approved? I'll make it conform to all Apple HIG guidelines, and I'll put a warning that it will allow you to use apps that haven't gone through Apple's QA process, so people are fully informed and can choose not to install my app.

 

[shk718]

so what kinds of apps are you boys working on?

 

[BrentT]

so what kinds of apps are you boys working on?

I'd love to tell you, but without assurance that I will be in the App Store on July 11, I don't want to say anything.

I have two apps ready to go, but my fear is someone else with a similar app will get into the store first. I don't mind competition, but I need to be able to compete.

 

[shk718]

I'd love to tell you, but without assurance that I will be in the App Store on July 11, I don't want to say anything.

I have two apps ready to go, but my fear is someone else with a similar app will get into the store first. I don't mind competition, but I need to be able to compete.

i can understand that. when the app store opens we should have a special section here of only group member's applications.

 

[bluedevil14]

i think the accepting applications part is pretty clever

 

[tr0jan]

im pretty excited for the first apps.. if there are some good apps i will spend 50-100 euros in the first weeks.. praying for a nike+ app

so common guys! bring good apps!

 

[istealth]

Bout time, now lets bring on the app store.

 

[Biscotti]

Apple has sent out an email notice to developers that they are now accepting applications to the App Store.

"Get started by downloading the either beta version of the iPhone OS, available in the iPhone Dev Center. With this new version of iPhone OS you can conduct final testing and prepare your application for submission to the App Store."

Am I the only one who noticed that the people at Apple can't spell???
Corrention: Get started by EITHER downloading the beta version...

Just saying...

 

[eastcoastsurfer]

And there couldn't be a better reason to avoid developing for the iPhone.

Consider that you've just spent months writing an excellent app. Now, since Apple hasn't made clear criteria for acceptance, it could be based on the UI, it could be based on performance, or, most insidiously, it could be based on whether they think it's going to be a threat to current or future revenue streams. This latter could mean that apps that were approved one day, are rejected the next. If I try to distribute my "unapproved" app other than on iTunes, I might have my cert revoked.

So.. should I implement a jailbreaker that allows users to download any further apps unsigned from 3rd party locations, will it be approved? I'll make it conform to all Apple HIG guidelines, and I'll put a warning that it will allow you to use apps that haven't gone through Apple's QA process, so people are fully informed and can choose not to install my app.

This has bugged me day since one. I would be okay with it as long as there was a route for users to get my app on their iPhone without going through the app store, but since Apple controls all distribution they also control what *they* think is a good app or not. It's obvious Apple has also been very vague on what the qualifications are just so they can set them arbitrarily when they so choose. I'm waiting for the stories of people submitting apps, having them get rejected and then Apple releasing something very similar a couple weeks later...

I'd love to tell you, but without assurance that I will be in the App Store on July 11, I don't want to say anything.

I have two apps ready to go, but my fear is someone else with a similar app will get into the store first. I don't mind competition, but I need to be able to compete.

Guess what. Ideas are a dime a dozen. My guess is that your secret idea has been thought of a million times already. All that matters is execution(when VC gives funding it's mainly about the team and not the idea per se). So even if you are the first out of the gate, if your execution stinks I could take your idea day one and release something better in short order.

 

[aaronsullivan]

Am I the only one who noticed that the people at Apple can't spell???
Corrention:

Corrention?
It never fails. Lol.

I've got a game I'll be showing off next week, hopefully via video. I'll be sure to put a post on the forums here somewhere.

Also, we are a small team with a modest game and I don't fear Apple's approval process. If Steve is to be trusted in any way, the suggestion was strongly given that it is a filtering process to make sure nothing pornographic or malicious or rule-breaking (like voip over 3G rather than wifi) or ultra-buggy gets sold through the store. Sadly, I think there will be a lot of shovelware seeping in after this initial launch when the floodgates open to more developers.

If nothing else, public opinion helps keep Apple in check here. If a completely legit and interesting game got rejected, the developers would surely make a lot of noise and it could even be released for jailbroken phones to drive the point home. If it were to happen consistently, Apple could have a major PR problem.

Also, consider that Apple wants to make money.

 

[BrentT]

TGuess what. Ideas are a dime a dozen. My guess is that your secret idea has been thought of a million times already. All that matters is execution(when VC gives funding it's mainly about the team and not the idea per se). So even if you are the first out of the gate, if your execution stinks I could take your idea day one and release something better in short order.

I agree with you 100%. My idea really isn't secret, I am sure there will be others like it. I have been working hard to make it very useful for its intended audience. I believe in the marketplace, but you have pointed out very well that Apple has not created a freely competing marketplace.

 

[kornyboy]

Wirelessly posted (iPhone: 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)

Time is winding down. It won't be long now. I really look forward to seeing what the current group of accepted developers bring to the table.

 

[Greencardman]

I'm also worried about the lack of acceptance. I know there are a lot of developers ready to go, and excluding them from the launch means a lot of missed revenue for some people, and a lot of extra revenue for others, merely because they might be the only accepted App in a category. I'm all for competition, but a lack of competition AND unbalanced success is going to make a lot of people unhappy, and rightly so. It would suck to think you could have had the opportunity to make $100K and missed out because Apple didn't get around to it.

 

[Biscotti]

Corrention?
It never fails. Lol.

Tuché my good man...

 

[JCC]

So.. should I implement a jailbreaker that allows users to download any further apps unsigned from 3rd party locations, will it be approved?

IIRC, the license for the SDK explicitly disallows apps which download and install programs from other than the App Store. Whether one likes or dislikes that there is only one sanctioned way to distribute iPhone/iPod touch apps to the general public, at least Apple, so far, has been clear in the SDK license about what apps they won't accept. (I guess there's nothing to stop you from distributing a jailbreaking app using the other two ways of distributing apps. It'd still technically be a license violation if you used the SDK to develop it.)

How this will all work out, of course, depends on Apple's actual behavior. I'd think it'd be in their interest to approve apps to get as much into the store as possible. Anything not explicitly forbidden is probably allowed. This is not to say that some of their restrictions aren't a bit silly.

It also goes without saying that no one is forced to develop for iPhone. The people who don't like the terms of the SDK simply shouldn't develop iPhone/iPod touch apps using the SDK. (I'm not sure developing apps without the SDK is actually any more ethical though. Making use of undocumented behavior makes it hard to make OS improvements. Screwing everyone over just so you don't have to get your app approved by Apple doesn't sound like a win to me.)

It's not like there's a shortage of mobile platforms to develop for.

 

[Veri]

the suggestion was strongly given that it is a filtering process to make sure nothing pornographic or malicious or rule-breaking (like voip over 3G rather than wifi) or ultra-buggy gets sold

1. You can't confirm any of these things without a thorough source code audit. Any good developer could trigger a malicious process n days after installation, while iPhone users get a false sense of security that their app has been fully vetted.

2. What's wrong with porn? If you think it's immoral, convince people with reason, not by taking away choices. And if you want your children to be shielded from porn, then far better to have a regulated iTunes store than to force porn-consumers to jailbreak, creating an unregulated underground environment.

3. "Rule-breaking" is arbitrary, and that's the main problem. Even "no VoIP" is vague - does that include a voice-based answering machine service, for example?

I think there will be a lot of shovelware seeping in

That's why, in a free market, businesses build reputations. Let users write reviews, give ratings, etc. The iTunes store is also a fairly good leveller, as all software gets introduced from the same interface (I realise firms will market outside the store).

How many Mac users do you find with machines full of spyware/trojans/resource hogs? Some ports *coughFirefoxcough* have only half-hearted integration into the Mac experience, but I'd hate it to mean that such products weren't available on the Mac.

If a completely legit and interesting game got rejected...

...then unless they were a well-known software house, they've already been cut off before they have the chance to make themselves known as "legit and interesting".

Also, consider that Apple wants to make money.

Yes, it would be a matter of convincing Apple that a less control-freak approach would increase 3rd party development and make Apple richer.

 

[kenaustus]

I think that right now Apple is only interested in getting a base of apps ready that cover a wide range of areas. Have choices available for most users to keep them happy. Also, just as important, have a somewhat manageable size in the AppStore as they will be bringing that up to speed also. Remembering the problems ATT had handling the load of people trying to activate their iPhones when it first went on sale I can see Apple being somewhat cautious.

I can see Apple expanding their acceptance rate as time goes by. With over 250,000 SDKs downloaded there is no way Apple could handle even a fraction of the apps that could be submitted - assuming only a fraction of the downloaded SDKs resulted in a submission.

 

[enzomedici]

Yes, I'm totally pissed off at Apple....

And some of us are still not accepted into the program

It is ridiculous that they are only allowing a certain # of developers in at a time. Why? It makes no sense at all. They don't do it for Mac, so why for the iPhone? This is a dumb move on Apple's part. Those 21,000 of us that are not approved developers will not get our apps in the app store on launch day which puts us at a huge competitive disadvantage and is completely unfair.

We're actually thinking of suing Apple over this matter as it is monopolistic in nature. They are controlling the platform and giving preferential treatment to certain vendors and pissing off many long time Mac developers.

 

[twoodcc]

alright! bring on july 11th!

 

[Veri]

We're actually thinking of suing Apple over this matter as it is monopolistic in nature. They are controlling the platform and giving preferential treatment to certain vendors and pissing off many long time Mac developers.

Yes to second sentence, but is suing them going to help any more than suing Microsoft did? While Apple drags it out and you make an enemy out of them, your competitors will be enjoying their pride of place.

If you don't want to develop jailbreak-only apps (understandable), why not develop for other platforms instead, as JCC suggested? Start up a public catalogue of developers who will port to iPhone when restrictions are relaxed. And/or, if you do get approval, make sure an appropriate area eg install/About links EUs to the catalogue, i.e. shows what they're losing out on thanks to Apple's stubbornness. How about a little corner marquee every fortnight, for the free apps you release, saying, "I had to pay $99 to Apple for the privilege of giving away this app to you. Follow this link to find out more."

The real test, then, will be to see if Apple auto-bans any such apps.

 

[G58]

Welcome to the way things are, and will be in future.

It is a long way from an open source utopia, but unless Google's alternative solution becomes viable, this is the new and only game in town right now.

If you study Apple's options and look at the history of software development, it's easy to see where their thinking is heading. If they are to maintain their good security record, this move will be vital.

And there couldn't be a better reason to avoid developing for the iPhone.

Consider that you've just spent months writing an excellent app. Now, since Apple hasn't made clear criteria for acceptance, it could be based on the UI, it could be based on performance, or, most insidiously, it could be based on whether they think it's going to be a threat to current or future revenue streams. This latter could mean that apps that were approved one day, are rejected the next. If I try to distribute my "unapproved" app other than on iTunes, I might have my cert revoked.

So.. should I implement a jailbreaker that allows users to download any further apps unsigned from 3rd party locations, will it be approved? I'll make it conform to all Apple HIG guidelines, and I'll put a warning that it will allow you to use apps that haven't gone through Apple's QA process, so people are fully informed and can choose not to install my app.

 

[Donz0r]

Apple has sent out an email notice to developers that they are now accepting applications to the App Store.

"Get started by downloading the either beta version of the iPhone OS, available in the iPhone Dev Center. With this new version of iPhone OS you can conduct final testing and prepare your application for submission to the App Store."

Am I the only one who noticed that the people at Apple can't spell???
Corrention: Get started by EITHER downloading the beta version...

Just saying...

Actually it says "Get started by downloading the eigth beta version..."

 

[Sbrocket]

And there couldn't be a better reason to avoid developing for the iPhone.

Consider that you've just spent months writing an excellent app. Now, since Apple hasn't made clear criteria for acceptance, it could be based on the UI, it could be based on performance, or, most insidiously, it could be based on whether they think it's going to be a threat to current or future revenue streams. This latter could mean that apps that were approved one day, are rejected the next. If I try to distribute my "unapproved" app other than on iTunes, I might have my cert revoked.

That's a risk I'm willing to take. Apple would only be shooting themselves in the foot by being stringent with what they approve.

The "approval" process is meant to weed out those applications which have been specifically disallowed by the terms of the SDK agreement or those applications that have the potential to harm users. If you can't see the value in some way to prevent malicious applications from getting on a public store, then you have some problems.

So.. should I implement a jailbreaker that allows users to download any further apps unsigned from 3rd party locations, will it be approved? I'll make it conform to all Apple HIG guidelines, and I'll put a warning that it will allow you to use apps that haven't gone through Apple's QA process, so people are fully informed and can choose not to install my app.

Doing so would be a violation of the iPhone SDK agreement, so no, you can't.

Their rules are not nebulous. Go read the damn legal agreements for once.