Mac only sdk *sobs*
Are you freakin' serious?
It's a phone that runs a version of Mac OS X.
Why WOULDN'T the SDK be Mac OS X based?
Does Microsoft have a Mac SDK for their Windows Mobile? Duh....
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.
Apple Releases iPhone SDK, Demos Spore, Instant Messaging
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Are you freakin' serious?
It's a phone that runs a version of Mac OS X.
Why WOULDN'T the SDK be Mac OS X based?
Does Microsoft have a Mac SDK for their Windows Mobile? Duh....
Wow, you're pretty tough. Hoping a company fails because they release a product six days late. I hope you have fun with Linux, and don't get upset when people can't finish a project because their "real" lives get in the way or when your favorite piece of free software stops being free or just goes away.
And good luck with an Openmoko phone. I've talked to a couple people who have moved on from working on that project, because they said no one could agree on anything. But hey who knows, you might have an iPhone like phone from them soon.
lol 'newbie' vs arn (the owner/founder of macrumors).....I wonder who has more seniority in a topic such as this
Look - noone is saying Apple's offer sucks. I agree with you, the amount of market exposure a developer can get for using Apple's software distribution service is awsome. But the problem is you don't have an option. What if you wanted to release an application by yourself?
And BTW, I don't think you're fair with telling people they don't know anything about how the market works. If you develop a small application, you can reach a moderate amount of popularity without marketing and similar stuff. You can make a site, just like Parapup said, and sell it yourself. The internet does wonders, if it's a decent app odds are you'll get dugg and before you know money will start coming in.
Of course, we're not talking about applications the size of Photoshop, but I doubt there will be any apps of that scale on the iPhone. Small apps, on the other hand, easily become popular just with the word of mouth. Be fair and go through your applications folder - how many did you get after seeing an advertisment and how many did you just happen to find after a google session?
Finally someone who understands retail. A 30% markup (yes, you figure that into what you want to charge for the app) is nothing. Companies pay for shelf space all the time. Advertising is a huge expense. Credit card charges eat up more. Jobs even said they are not charging to make a profit, just to cover their costs. You may choose to think he is lying, but I don't think he is.
After seeing what some of the apps to come willl be, I just want to make sweet love to the iPhone. I'll just think of the next 3 months like foreplay.
The announce was much too awesome to even respond to some of the negative comments.
The announce was much too awesome to even respond to some of the negative comments.
If you think you are capable of writing applications for any phone, and you don't like Apple's terms, there are a lot of other phones out there that you could develop for. Go ahead, if you think you can make more anywhere else.
Here's how I see it: You can download Apple's Software Development Kit for free. It's based on XCode and the gcc compiler, so you get some really quality kit. That alone will save you thousands and thousands of dollars in productivity compared to developing for a Symbian phone. Now say your application is done. To get it out there, accessible by four million iPhone users today and ten million by the end of the year, you invest half an hour work and $99. Take exactly the same situation with a Symbian phone. You have an application, ready to sell. So what are you going to do now? Any idea?
Obtuse.
"What value add"? You are NOT required to pay to buy from the store. Developers pay a small one time fee (for godssakes, it's 99 bucks!) to have someone host, publicize, distribute demos, distribute apps, handle the payments and get all your money to you. And the buyers know the app is certified, so they're not afraid to download it and buy it. Even if your app is free, you are getting enormous publicity / name recognition, which has huge value in and of itself--and it's FREE. For PAID apps 30% to do all this is not out of line--you go right ahead and do this all yourself. Naivete rears its head.
Free apps are free--that's FREE.
Your "neighborhood store" analogy: Again, what? The correct analogy is that you (as a manufacturer) would pay the store a tiny one time fee to PROVIDE SHELF SPACE FOR ALL YOUR PRODUCTS to either sell or give away. Yeah, real bummer.
Aren't you late for a World Trade protest, or Algebra 2 or something?
"What value add"? You are NOT required to pay to buy from the store. Developers pay a small one time fee (for godssakes, it's 99 bucks!) to have someone host, publicize, distribute demos, distribute apps, handle the payments and get all your money to you. And the buyers know the app is certified, so they're not afraid to download it and buy it. Even if your app is free, you are getting enormous publicity / name recognition, which has huge value in and of itself--and it's FREE. For PAID apps 30% to do all this is not out of line--you go right ahead and do this all yourself. Naivete rears its head.
Free apps are free--that's FREE.
Your "neighborhood store" analogy: Again, what? The correct analogy is that you (as a manufacturer) would pay the store a tiny one time fee to PROVIDE SHELF SPACE FOR ALL YOUR PRODUCTS to either sell or give away. Yeah, real bummer.
Aren't you late for a World Trade protest, or Algebra 2 or something?
The roadmap event is online: http://events.apple.com.edgesuite.net/rtp20e92/event/index.html?internal=fj2l3s9dm
Here's my small take on the SDK issue, as a minimal developer for a few very small and specialized apps for WinMo (internal company only):
I personally would think that $99 + 30% of sales would be a great *option* for developers. However, it should only be an option.
Now, I'm not saying that iTunes and Apple should host just any software free of charge or anything like that. I think that their vetting of the software can be a good thing, as long as a policy of "rejecting" applications that they're working on their own versions of, etc, isn't implemented. If it's a fair, simple and easy process, as Apple is quite good at developing, then it would be a great option for developers, and would give customers a decent easy option for software purchases.
Where I think the rub is in the fact that it isn't an option. For any application distribution outside of one's own iPhone, you are required to use *their* store and are required to abide by *their* pricing guidelines.
Were this to happen on any mainstream computing platform, you'd see a freaking rebellion. Can you imagine the fecal matter hitting the rotating blades if Microsoft were to make a version of Windows that only allowed you to install software sold through them, under threat of voiding your warranty?
There is always an option to jailbreak one's iPhone, but we all know what happens with that.
Honestly, my issue isn't with the iTunes distribution pricing or market; that's certainly a value for any commercial software. What I have the problem with is that it's the ONLY method of installing a program without voiding one's warranty.
I can develop an application for my Mac here, free of charge, and put that application out for the world to use and enjoy. Apple knew (rightly so) that giving their development tools to the population would allow third partys to extend their machine's capabilities and would drive the people to buy Macintoshes to "run that cool new program".
I can do the same for a Windows machine (albeit with different tools; and ones not included with the base operating system), a Windows Mobile phone, or PDA and even Linux and BSD machines. I can write a commercial application, a shareware application, an open-source freeware application and an application that takes donations if the end user happens to feel like donating, and I can pick my method of distribution and can even offer them for direct download myself should I want to.
However, with the iPhone, as a developer, I'm limited to distribution through their channels only, or to the smaller limited "jailbroken" market.
To sum it up; the pricing and vetting of apps =good. The lack of distribution options outside of Apple = bad.
I personally would think that $99 + 30% of sales would be a great *option* for developers. However, it should only be an option.
Now, I'm not saying that iTunes and Apple should host just any software free of charge or anything like that. I think that their vetting of the software can be a good thing, as long as a policy of "rejecting" applications that they're working on their own versions of, etc, isn't implemented. If it's a fair, simple and easy process, as Apple is quite good at developing, then it would be a great option for developers, and would give customers a decent easy option for software purchases.
Where I think the rub is in the fact that it isn't an option. For any application distribution outside of one's own iPhone, you are required to use *their* store and are required to abide by *their* pricing guidelines.
Were this to happen on any mainstream computing platform, you'd see a freaking rebellion. Can you imagine the fecal matter hitting the rotating blades if Microsoft were to make a version of Windows that only allowed you to install software sold through them, under threat of voiding your warranty?
There is always an option to jailbreak one's iPhone, but we all know what happens with that.
Honestly, my issue isn't with the iTunes distribution pricing or market; that's certainly a value for any commercial software. What I have the problem with is that it's the ONLY method of installing a program without voiding one's warranty.
I can develop an application for my Mac here, free of charge, and put that application out for the world to use and enjoy. Apple knew (rightly so) that giving their development tools to the population would allow third partys to extend their machine's capabilities and would drive the people to buy Macintoshes to "run that cool new program".
I can do the same for a Windows machine (albeit with different tools; and ones not included with the base operating system), a Windows Mobile phone, or PDA and even Linux and BSD machines. I can write a commercial application, a shareware application, an open-source freeware application and an application that takes donations if the end user happens to feel like donating, and I can pick my method of distribution and can even offer them for direct download myself should I want to.
However, with the iPhone, as a developer, I'm limited to distribution through their channels only, or to the smaller limited "jailbroken" market.
To sum it up; the pricing and vetting of apps =good. The lack of distribution options outside of Apple = bad.
30% is an excellent deal for any small developer.
-> placement in the application store on every iPhone and iPod Touch
-> no arranging your own website, webstore, etc
-> far less requirement to have to market your software just to even get people vaguely aware of it, never mind buy it
-> no credit card fees, no merchant fees, no other fees
-> 70% of the retail price *you set* straight into your bank account
I'm sure that being placed on that store will get you more than 30% more sales than not being there as well. It also adds a veneer of respectability to your product.
-> placement in the application store on every iPhone and iPod Touch
-> no arranging your own website, webstore, etc
-> far less requirement to have to market your software just to even get people vaguely aware of it, never mind buy it
-> no credit card fees, no merchant fees, no other fees
-> 70% of the retail price *you set* straight into your bank account
I'm sure that being placed on that store will get you more than 30% more sales than not being there as well. It also adds a veneer of respectability to your product.
About the $99 publishing fee.
I would like to add another point which arises from a question.
Q: Would you buy an app before giving it a trial run/finding out if its worth paying for or if you really wanna use it in the long run ?
This would be interesting to see - how App Store deals with it. It might not be the best to follow the pay before use protocol.
What do you guys think ?
That's exactly what I thought of heading to make another edit to my post. Yes, it's a filter to discourage crap being loaded onto the App-Store. Imagine how frustrating it would be to have apps flooding in, most of which might be substandard with people trying for -"Yay!! that's my App on the App-Store. Let us all do it now !!" - And they all get listed in the "Newly added" section - Would anybody be visiting the Newly Added apps in that case ?! I am not supporting the $99 fee but only stating one of the purposes it would serve. Quality vs. Quantity(useless).
I would like to add another point which arises from a question.
Q: Would you buy an app before giving it a trial run/finding out if its worth paying for or if you really wanna use it in the long run ?
This would be interesting to see - how App Store deals with it. It might not be the best to follow the pay before use protocol.
What do you guys think ?
I don't think the system on the phone has that much do to with the system of the developer platform. It's just like saying an SDK for Symbian phones should be available on a Symbian based OS (could prove to be difficult to find). Or that you should only develop Java apps in an OS written in Java.
Oh and Microsoft is known for liking proprietary stuff (seems to me Apple is joining the club) so they are IMHO a bad comparison. You can, on the other hand, develop a Java J2ME mobile app on practically any operating system out there (Windows, OS X, Linux, ...).
Well that would be true if there weren't a whole bunch of people with unlocked phones who aren't paying this.
I don't know why Apple don't charge everyone $20 and then rebate this through ATT/O2 on the next monthly bill for those who are on authorized rate plans.
Not a fair comparison at all.
Java was designed from the ground up to work across ANY platform...
I think Apple is smart for keeping the SDK on Mac.
More people want to develop for them, either will be true Mac lovers = better software typically, or will purchase Mac hardware to develop = win for Apple = win for all of us Mac users!
I agree. Not a lot of people can actually work on many of the tiny screens and keyboards. But for me, and a lot of die hard others, we live by that mobile productivity. And our phones, whether they be Treos with mid-sized BT keyboards or the built in keyboards, or HTC Touches with the far superior keyboards (the best I have used in a mobile touch screen device) actually make using those apps easy.
I have gotten A LOT done on my phone with Word Mobile and other apps. My fiancee, who has had a Treo for more than 3 years, has used them just as much. And that one feature is near the top of a list of others that make it harder for us to use the iPhone.
We are a small group of people, but many of our reasons are justified in not using the iPhone, and wishing to see improvement. Maybe the SDK will help, but I have a feeling that it may not go as far as many expect it.
I honestly don't think that matters. Arn is still a person, he's not Woz, Jobs, Gates, or any of the movers and shakers in the tech world. Arn knows his stuff, but he's not the catch all guru of tech. And the points that the other poster is making are reasonable.
That's actually a really great idea. They should do that. Then the people breaking the rules would for sure have to pay.
Well people do it all the time with boxed software. But since Apple lets the dev set the price: Q. What's to stop a dev from posting two versions, the paid version and a trial free version? A. Nothing
Anyone who thinks 30% is too much for margins has never sold something in a store. Seriously you write a half-way decent app and you could roll in the cash by just writing code. They have eliminated so much of the overhead with software development with this model.
As for free Apps, I agree that itunes shouldn't be the ONLY method for delivery. But who's to say that you couldn't write installer.app that would grab and app and install it over the wire like in jailbroken iphones/touches now? We don't know the rules regarding file system access (we will soon), but i would be surprised if there wasn't a reasonable way to do it for people with a little know-how.
Wow, good point. I never buy software before I try it, and I write software! Did they talk about this at all?
I have mixed feelings. I wouldn't want to buy an App that I didn't try at first. So I think the double version method would work... or a more refined way.
As for using iTunes as the method of delivery... I kind of like it, but I think Apple should invest more into iTunes, if people are going to start getting their music, movies, TV shows, music videos, movie rentals, games, and now iPhone and iPod Touch software from it. iTunes needs to be much more robust if it's going to handle all of that traffic and resources.
p.s. People don't always do it with boxed software. Usually there is a way to try the app over the web for free, then go into the store and purchase it if it's too large to download (Adobe Apps/Final Cut Pro and other Apple Pro apps) of if they just want the hard copy optical disks and user manual (Aperture/other 3rd party apps)
LOL are you kidding? I think most Americans who know anything about cellphones have heard of Nokia, I think all of our carriers sell Nokia?
And, uh, hate to break it to you, but the USA is still the largest economy on the planet, by a good margin -- there is no other market that is more "lucrative." Sorry!
What part of it isn't fair? The fact that Java was planned better?
I think it's a bit fanboyish to claim "true mac lovers" develop "better software typically". Also I don't see how many people buying macs will benifit all mac users. It could do the exact opposite - more users, more potential virus targets, etc. But that's a whole different discussion, I don't want to get carried away.
Anyway, the more I think about it, the more obvious it seems - since Apple gets money from the mobile providers, it's in their absolute interest to prevent people from developing VoIP apps. They already announced that they won't be allowed over mobile networks. Since it would be nearly impossible to release a fully fledged SDK and still effectively ban VoIP traffic, they decided to be the gatekeeper and controll the applications that get released. Perfectly reasonable from a business point of view.
You can only develop Symbian apps on the Windows platform (so no cross-platform SDK stuff there)
Eclipse (the premier java development toolset) is written in Java, as are all the other ones I can think of so you are developing Java apps on a Java Platform (which includes a full Virtual Machine as Java is not native).
The iPhone "platform" is Cocoa and Objective-C, and XCode is written in Objective-C on top of Cocoa. To move the whole environment across to windows would require an implementation of Cocoa on Windows which would be a far from trivial task and would be roughly equivalent to the WINE project (and look how long that's taken so far!)
There are 3 major consumer Operating Systems in the wild: Windows, Linux and OS X.
To develop Windows native apps, you generally use Windows
To develop Linux native apps, you generally use Linux
To develop OS X native apps, you generally use OS X
The iPhone uses OS X so it was logical that the toolset would be on OS X
Yes, I know about Real Basic but how many commercial apps are actually developed using it? and how do they compare to "native" apps on OS X, Linux and Windows?
At the risk of flogging a deceased equine, Jobs said the SDK would be 'in the hands of developers' in Feb. From everything I've seen, that was absolutely the case. Its been in a lot of hands for quite a while now. Obviously in the hands of those speaking today.
In the hands of every bedroom hacker on the planet? He never said that.
I think he's been perfectly accurate.