Apple Releases iPhone SDK, Demos Spore, Instant Messaging

[jmorrison0722]

As far as i can see the main problem about $99 fee and 30% of sales isn't that it is too much, it's the fact they are forcing you to go through them. If this way of distribution would be just an option for the developer, it would be great - you would get relatively cheap hosting, you wouldn't have to worry about any legal issues connected with sales, you wouldn't have to advertise your application, it would be widely available, etc. But the problem here is they are forcing you to do this.

If i want to develop a java/symbian/windows mobile app, I don't have to pay Sun/Nokia/Microsoft to be able to distribute it to people. I can develop it (in different OSes for java and symbian), put it on the web and then people can download it and use it. I can set up a Paypal account and get a couple of bucks out of it. All of this almost completely free.

And please don't say you can offer people an xcode project so they can download the SDK, compile the app and put it on their iphone the developer way, because regular users don't know how to do that. If Apple won't let people simply download app files from the internet and put them on the ipod like podcasts, music, movies, etc, then it's bad.

People who are saying this is a good thing that will keep crappy apps out - what would you say if Apple announced that a new version of OS X will only be able to run certain applications that go through their test process. What would you say if musicians would only be able to get their music on ipods if it were sold through the iTunes store?

I am displeased.

You know as well as I that someone will (they always do) find / publish / invent as way to put apps directly from the internet onto the phone. The real question is, will the average consumer who buy the phone (not the developers and techies out there) venture to download and install apps on their own knowing Apple doesn't support it? I doubt it. Given the choice, they'll remember the stories of 'bricked' iPhones and decide it's not worth saving a few bucks or getting that app the developer was too stubborn to post to Apple.

Apple has every right to do this. It's their brand name. Their website. Their products. Their OS's. Their overhead. If you don't think it's fair, don't do it. Go elsewhere. Time will tell...if enough people go elsewhere, they'll (Apple) know they made a bad move and got greedy. Short of that, you can't blame them for wanting to capitalize on it, right?

 

[specops]

DOES ANYBODY KNOW IF THERE IS A VIDEO OF THE MEETING????
link please!

 

[inkswamp]

As far as i can see the main problem about $99 fee and 30% of sales isn't that it is too much, it's the fact they are forcing you to go through them.
[...]
I am displeased.

I'm pretty sure I saw it noted on Engadget that Apple wasn't going to stop people from "side-loading" apps as well. I think the AppStore thing is just a convenience for developers who don't want to set up their own site to download the app along with instructions for how to load it manually on the iPhone. If you want to go that route, go for it. From what I see, Apple isn't planning to stop you.

 

[satcomer]

Perhaps you should move.

? I was replying to someone else. Maybe you should follow the thread.

 

[jmorrison0722]

? I was replying to someone else. Maybe you should follow the thread.

It was a harmless joke anyway...I meant to write just kidding in the next post, but someone came up to my desk at work right then.

 

[inkswamp]

You know as well as I that someone will (they always do) find / publish / invent as way to put apps directly from the internet onto the phone.

I still haven't been able to track down further info, but didn't the SDK demo today show how developers can simply drag-and-drop a compiled app to the iPhone while connected to the computer? What stops a user from downloading the app from the Internet and doing the same? Presumably that's what was meant by the "side-loading" thing. Am I missing something here?

 

[MightyB]

Battery Life

Battery life anyone?? I imagine some of those games will eat it QUICK.

Also, wonder what active sync will do to the battery? On the HTC Touch I had, ActiveSync running constantly KILLED it.

 

[whatever]

Like everyone else here, I was truly hoping for something today. But just think of what developers can create in a few months..An actual time machine so I dont have to wait for any more rumors to become reality!

So what did you expect?

The promised SDK was delivered 6 days late, which really isn't that bad.

And Apple surprised everyone by the announcement that they were licensing ActiveSync, which is huge!

 

[tm1000]

Battery life anyone?? I imagine some of those games will eat it QUICK.

Also, wonder what active sync will do to the battery? On the HTC Touch I had, ActiveSync running constantly KILLED it.

Ya I thought about that. Spore will probably be a 5 minute game. But thats not to say that apple will improve on the battery life in future models. So it's still exciting.

 

[Dmac77]

WTF Apple! just because my parents are dead set on staying with verizon and my only solution to the iphone is an ipod touch, does not mean you should charge me $20 for every major update that iphone users get for free!!!

 

[Telp]

I gotta say, I'm a bit dissapointed. I was waiting soo impatiently for just today and now i have to wait till June. On the other hand, I am sure this is a very labor intensive project that they have been working on for quite some time. Getting everything together and everything. This looks great! Apple, although it's taken them awhile, has done a teriffic job setting this up. App store, free apps, some great game demonstrations. They seem to have a very sold plan that is going to meet just about all of the peoples needs and wants on these forums. Their enterprise support looks good too. Don't know much on that side, but today was a great day overall. End of June, here i come!

 

[gwangung]

I think he might be a 16yr old ?

Could be. He doesn't seem to be very experienced in business matters. If you take a look at places like bizstats.com, you'll see that typical businesses pay a fair amount for display, distribution and so forth. 30% doesn't seem out of line compared to other businesses.

 

[Matek]

You know as well as I that someone will (they always do) find / publish / invent as way to put apps directly from the internet onto the phone. The real question is, will the average consumer who buy the phone (not the developers and techies out there) venture to download and install apps on their own knowing Apple doesn't support it? I doubt it. Given the choice, they'll remember the stories of 'bricked' iPhones and decide it's not worth saving a few bucks or getting that app the developer was too stubborn to post to Apple.

Apple has every right to do this. It's their brand name. Their website. Their products. Their OS's. Their overhead. If you don't think it's fair, don't do it. Go elsewhere. Time will tell...if enough people go elsewhere, they'll (Apple) know they made a bad move and got greedy. Short of that, you can't blame them for wanting to capitalize on it, right?

I agree, of course there will be a way to get things on your phone directly, but just like you wrote - the average consumer will not have enough knowledge or will be to afraid to do it. But this isn't about the developers being stubborn. The fact is anywhere you develop apps, you can release them without going through the developer of the actual platform (apple in this case), so this is a rather strange move.

When you decide on using a certain platform, you usually want to know how many applications are available (e.g. many people won't switch to Linux because there are some apps they use that aren't available). It should for this reason be in Apple's interest to have as many applications available as possible - making it harder and more expensive for the developers to bring them to the customer IMHO isn't a nice move.

The second part of your post has a very valid point indeed, but I still think we can discuss the matter and I think it's fair to criticise apple in this case. People constantly complain about Microsoft and Windows and they are right, some things could be done much better. Yet we don't tell them to shut up because the market share proves Microsoft is right.

 

[jmorrison0722]

WTF Apple! just because my parents are dead set on staying with verizon and my only solution to the iphone is an ipod touch, does not mean you should charge me $20 for every major update that iphone users get for free!!!

I never thought I'd be "one of those type of posters" but...could you please take a few minutes before you post to look back through some of the prior posts. Your concern has been brought up and discussed several times in this thread alone.

I would be sort of like someone jumping in here and saying..."Hey, did anyone hear about the new SDK and enterprise apps Apple just released? And by the way, I hear that OS X Leopard has been released."

Sorry if this sounds rude, it's just obvious that you popped in here, didn't read a thing and expect someone to take you seriously.

 

[bmk]

So you are saying it's OK for Apple to do 30% because someone else does 50%? Isn't selling handheld software Handango's sole business. etc.

Also companies like Shape Services do sell their own apps - tell me what costs would be for selling my apps on my own - bandwidth is cheap, web shop software is already a done thing and can be done for cheap if not, advertising is required any way if you sell via iTunes or via own shop, administration costs are common - Apple is not going to do my accounting and taxes for example. What else?

Dear Parapup, please give up on your whining posts - you clearly know nothing about the real world and the market that developers have to deal with (and in fact that all individual businesses, creators, artists etc have to deal with - they would kill to have this kind of market exposure so cheaply) and your pointless non-arguments are frankly just clogging up an already clogged up thread.

 

[ralfyx]

video: http://events.apple.com.edgesuite.net/rtp20e92/event/index.html?internal=fj2l3s9dm

 

[Telp]

WTF Apple! just because my parents are dead set on staying with verizon and my only solution to the iphone is an ipod touch, does not mean you should charge me $20 for every major update that iphone users get for free!!!

I am sick of people complaining about this. It is law that any company must do this. iPhone users don't get this for free, everytime we pay our monthly fee (the one iPod touch users DONT pay for) we pay a bit towards our next update. It is law that if a device is not on a subscription, you must pay for updates like this. If you dont like it, buy an iphone, and complain about the monthly price (its the same thing, worse actually). So before everyone on this forum goes into a frenzy that iPod touch users ONCE again have to pay for this major update, think a little more. This is not the first time this has been posted in this thread or on this forum at all. Read a little before you put your blunt "views" up front.

 

[tm1000]

Pay for new software features! Shocking!

I fully agree

 

[G99]

WTF Apple! just because my parents are dead set on staying with verizon and my only solution to the iphone is an ipod touch, does not mean you should charge me $20 for every major update that iphone users get for free!!!

Yes, but the contract on the iPhone is so expensive. Personally, I think we iPod touch users are getting a much better deal. I much prefer to pay for these updates every once in a while than to go on the exorbitant iPhone contract.

 

[ikir]

This Is Great!

 

[jmorrison0722]

I am sick of people complaining about this. It is law that any company must do this. iPhone users don't get this for free, everytime we pay our monthly fee (the one iPod touch users DONT pay for) we pay a bit towards our next update. It is law that if a device is not on a subscription, you must pay for updates like this. If you dont like it, buy an iphone, and complain about the monthly price (its the same thing, worse actually). So before everyone on this forum goes into a frenzy that iPod touch users ONCE again have to pay for this major update, think a little more. This is not the first time this has been posted in this thread or on this forum at all. Read a little before you put your blunt "views" up front.

Not sure it's an actual law, but for sure it's a industry standard business accounting practice. It has to do with a distinction between upgrades and updates. Upgrades include new features which you were not promised in your initial purchase agreement. Updates support the product you purchased from defect and in some cases provide additional compatibility, but almost never "new" features.

 

[iPhone Chicago]

I'm not going to whine, but I really was looking forward to playing with new apps tonight...ok, i'll whine...June?! so this might force me to be a 'first-time jailbreak user' for the next 4 months...but I have some newbie jailbreak questions...I know this probably isn't the right forum thread to ask these, but if anyone could quickly write me a reply that would be great...
1. If I want to jailbreak my current 1.1.4 iphone, will I lose all my personal stuff currently on the phone (contacts, email accounts, bookmarks, web app homescreen icons, weather/stock data, pictures)?
2. After I jailbreak, can I still sync the iphone to get ical updates and podcasts and such??
3. are there any cons to jailbreaking the phone??

 

[jmorrison0722]

Yes, but the contract on the iPhone is so expensive. Personally, I think we iPod touch users are getting a much better deal. I much prefer to pay for these updates every once in a while than to go on the exorbitant iPhone contract.

Assuming you don't want/need the phone part...I agree. You are getting more memory and much, much less out of pocket. A required contract for the iPhone alone will set you back USD $1436.00. Not sure exactly how much of that Apple will see, but it's still a cost of ownership.

 

[lamar777]

I am questioning "why do I have to pay $99" if I am a free software developer - one time or hundred. What value add does this give me when they any way will gulp 30% from the sales.

If your neighborhood store required you to pay $99 to enter the shop and then again pay 30% on top of the regular price of whatever you buy - would you go to that store without questioning why?

That analogy is silly. The App store will not be a neighborhood store it will be an international distribution center FREE for all iPhone customers to enter and browse and even walk out with a few free apps whenever they please. If you are a developer and want to distribute your app you have to pay a membership fee big deal the value add is that you will get your name out there more expansively if your app is good. If you really cant afford it preview your apps on your web page and ask for donations from people who want them. When you get $100 (and you will if you are good) put 'em on the app store for free.

 

[a104375]

They think we are idiots. If it worked one, they do it again. They are back with the accounting charge crap for the iPod touch owners ...

yeah its like i paid my $300 to why do they have to keep adding on to what i have paid just because i bought it earlier $20 here and $20 there by the time there replaced you'll have paid like $400 into the thing from updates