Apple Cracking Down on Sites Selling Access to iOS 6 Developer Betas

[Thunderhawks]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Cost of Publishing Apps

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]

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]

(...) 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]

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]

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]

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*]

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]

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]

Idea

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

 

[KdParker]

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*]

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]

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]

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]

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...

That would be $90K gross.

Here’s the thing, if you’re genuinely concerned that $99 fee is going to have a material impact on your ability to make money from an app, you’re 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 – 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 wouldn’t make any developers top 10.

 

[edddeduck]

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]

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 aren’t 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.