Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple's 3rd Party iPhone Application Plan?

ibanana said:
"The cost of application is added to the customer's monthly bill."

here we go...not a so good news
Click to expand...

Some developers may actually like this model because it reduces the piracy of their applications. If they could sell a $4.99 version of their application, not have to worry about distribution, not have to worry about taking care of the billing, etc., it would be kind of nice.

Considering what customers are paying for their monthly AT&T bills, an occasional $4.99 bill thrown in for a nice, shiny new application for your iPhone probably won't be so bad.
 
I can more or less deal with this, provider there is also a "Freeware" section on iTunes or whatever Apple uses to distribute iPhone apps and that Apple does provide the SDK they do to the big boys to small-time developers and freeware developers. Apple also cannot be allowed to ban apps based on what "type" of app it is, either. The only restriction should be whether or not the app fudges up the phone in some manner.

Of course, I have little faith in Apple actually allowing a freeware section and not censoring app selection given the way they handled the iPhone's 1.1.1 update.
 
even if they did this, I would probably still want to hack my phone. Finder? rSBT? IM? Most of the stuff I want on my iPhone apple will probably consider to be "unstable," either system hacks to customize the interface, or applications that compete with apple--imagine Adium on the iPhone, it already kicks iChat to the floor, cuts it into tiny pieces, and hides it in a freezer in the basement on OS X--or utilities like Finder that let you find stuff and would allow users to do awesome stuff like download documents from the internet that might not be readable by the phone itself (like .lisp files in e-mails, which, while they can't be run, could be read as text if only Apple would let us...). Or how about an application that runs natd over bluetooth/USB to give a computer EDGE data access? Apple is not going to "let us" do the cool things we want to.

On the other hand, if they develop a framework, I would venture to guess it will be easier to hack.
 
Stella said:
So, Apple really want 3rd party native applications to be a revenue stream for them? No doubt they'll get a small commission on sales.

Why everything apple does have to be a revenue stream -
* Want ring tones on your iPhone - pay
* Want 3rd party native apps - pay

Apple are kicking themselves in the feet - no Freeware applications.

People got upset with Verizon for disabling BT file transfer so they had to use a data connection - so customers had to pay for the data usage. There is little difference between this and Apple's strategy.

Greed, Greed and more Greed.

Allowing 3rd party native apps is a step in the right direction, but this is flawed.
Click to expand...

Who says that they won't offer "free" application, in addition to the "pay" ones.
There is hope! :p
 
AquaVita said:
As a sidekick 3 owner and huge Mac fan, i'm going to warn you all...you will regret the day that apple made this decision. ... Do bear in mind all of the above terrible apps usually cost around 4-10 dollars. Useless.
Click to expand...

One thing iPhone has going for it is OS X. If Apple can bring the power of Xcode and Cocoa to the development process, individuals and very small teams can bring very powerful applications to the iPhone.

I think to really make this approach work, however, Apple needs to sell a developer key (e.g., maybe part of the Select ADC membership) that would allow ADC members to develop and install iPhone applications on their own phones (but not for general distribution). Once they get it something truly useful, then they can take it to Apple for the vetting and placement on iTunes.

A good model for this might be Microsoft's Creator Club for XNA for the 360.
 
Posted 10/02/07

TitoC said:
Why can't there just be a "controlled" system, sort of like Apple's Widgets? Got a cool App? Get it reviewed and approved by Apple and you can download it via iTunes! This way Apple gets the control it wants and innovative apps get to the people. What's the problem with that? C'mon Apple.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm . . . . where have I heard this before . . . .

Seriously though, this is something that a lot of people have been asking for since the beginning. Want it to be secure and safe? Want to make sure it works and won't crash the phone? Want to make sure it lives up to Apple's standards? Yes, yes, and ummm . . . yes. All of these things can be done with a certified and accepted method (via itunes and/or Software update). I think though that Jobs wanted to hold on to this baby for as long as he could before "letting go!" It's time to let go Steve . . . it's time to let go.
 
Meh. I dont like it at all, but I can understand from a liability standpoint. Imagine Apple having to unbrick tons of iPhones from bad app installs. How much time and money is wasted because of bad coders.
 
jonnylink said:
it seems like every iPhone rumor makes things like the OpenMoko more appealing
Click to expand...

Indeed. Apple seems to be losing the warm fuzzy feeling it had back when I got my first Mac 6 years ago or so. Back then it seemed like the perfect balance -- open source back end, free development tools (also open source derived), awesome GUI, real useful apps, etc. Basically, a computer both a hacker and a non-hacker could love. While OS X (so far) doesn't seem to be falling down this trap, Apple's iPhone handling is concerning me that OS X and the Mac lineup may be heading this way.

It's getting to the point where I'm not even sure I'll get a Mac for my next computer when the time comes to retire my PowerMac G4 867. I'll probably still get one of the midrange Macs or a laptop for my wife (she needs Creative Suite and friends for her job), but I'll probably just use Linux for my desktop with a small Windows partition for gaming (much like what I would've done with an Intel Mac anyway). Hell, I use Linux daily at work without a problem (it's come a long way in the 6 years since I got my G4), and it seems like most of the apps I run on my Mac these days are ports of Linux apps anyway.
 
No surprise there, this is what I expected all along.

People will bash apple no matter what they do. If they allowed open development, people would be installing buggy apps and complaining about crashes. As long as apple actually approves a decent number of apps, I'm fine with this.

And no, there's no way in hell they'll allow a third party app that loads ringtones. Let it go already, you might as well ask for an iPhone app that removes DRM from iTunes songs and hosts them on a torrent.
 
Stella said:
So, Apple really want 3rd party native applications to be a revenue stream for them? No doubt they'll get a small commission on sales.

Why everything apple does have to be a revenue stream -
* Want ring tones on your iPhone - pay
* Want 3rd party native apps - pay

Apple are kicking themselves in the feet - no Freeware applications.

People got upset with Verizon for disabling BT file transfer so they had to use a data connection - so customers had to pay for the data usage. There is little difference between this and Apple's strategy.

Greed, Greed and more Greed.

Allowing 3rd party native apps is a step in the right direction, but this is flawed.
Click to expand...


artalliance said:
Who says that they won't offer "free" application, in addition to the "pay" ones.
There is hope! :p
Click to expand...

I agree. This could be handled and come out just like OS X Widgets. While some cost money, the majority of them out there (somewhere around 89% I believe) are free. And they should be handled as such. Want an App, download it. Don't need it anymore, disable it or delete it.

Just like App.Installer . . . oops!
 
nickbates said:
God you people are just never happy... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Well this update is like: Hey, last week we deleted all your freeware apps because we're jerks. Now, we're going to allow you to buy maybe 1% of those apps ... from us ... for a fee...

Oh, and they're not allowed to compete with any of the services that we offer.. did we mention that? yeah, you paid $500 (plus service fee :D ) to be our bitch.

You're not happy? Think Different!
 
i am both very sad and kind of happy.

Sad because it sounds like we're going to be forced to buy apps and freeware apps wont even be offered.

Happy because it looks like a new port for hackers to exploit, yay!!!!
 
Stella said:
So, Apple really want 3rd party native applications to be a revenue stream for them? No doubt they'll get a small commission on sales.

Why everything apple does have to be a revenue stream -
* Want ring tones on your iPhone - pay
* Want 3rd party native apps - pay

Apple are kicking themselves in the feet - no Freeware applications.

People got upset with Verizon for disabling BT file transfer so they had to use a data connection - so customers had to pay for the data usage. There is little difference between this and Apple's strategy.

Greed, Greed and more Greed.

Allowing 3rd party native apps is a step in the right direction, but this is flawed.
Click to expand...
This is exactly why I can't stand Verizon, even though they are my current provider. If AT&T/Apple are moving in the same direction, then forget it, I'll stick with the devil I know (and which has much better coverage).

None of this solves the double-charge just to have a custom ringtone, either. When did Apple get so ugly? They're behaving like they own the market, and they don't. Or is this the 2007 version of Steve saying, "We've got better stuff" ?
 
ok good news.....but why do we always have to pay for something else?? but i guess thats the world we live in :(
 
For folks that have a problem with the certification process idea, keep in mind that this is not an uncommon method in use already. The most obvious one that comes to mind is game consoles. The only question I really have is what kind of rules will Apple dictate. Will basically only games get approved, or will utility type tools (maybe like ssh, vnc client, etc) be allowed ?
 
milo said:
No surprise there, this is what I expected all along.

People will bash apple no matter what they do. If they allowed open development, people would be installing buggy apps and complaining about crashes. As long as apple actually approves a decent number of apps, I'm fine with this.

And no, there's no way in hell they'll allow a third party app that loads ringtones. Let it go already, you might as well ask for an iPhone app that removes DRM from iTunes songs and hosts them on a torrent.
Click to expand...

First of all, given that the iPhone runs OS X, buggy apps should not be able to take down the entire iPhone unless it's doing something really sketchy, like mucking around with the hardware directly. If ti's just something like an IM application, an eBook reader, etc., then only said app would crash. This would mean that people would bitch about the 3rd party app being a piece of crap, not the iPhone itself being a piece of crap. That is assuming that the OS X in the iPhone isn't so neutered that it loses one of it's greatest strengths: inter-application memory/crash protection.

Second, I could install J-random mp3 (or even MIDI!) ring tone on my old Nokia (not even a smart phone -- just a basic Bluetooth phone) without a problem. Why shouldn't I be able to do this on my iPhone? The only reason is for Apple to make more money by charging double for iTunes songs and ring tones.

Don't get me wrong, I do love my iPhone overall, but there are some glaring feature gaps that make it seem in some ways like a worse phone than the phone it replaced.
 
slughead said:
I love the apologist attitude. Apple's screening apps to make sure they don't provide functionality that Apple can profit on themselves.
Click to expand...

I would hardly call myself an Apple apologist. I said that the approach makes sense to me. Apple has said they want to insure a smooth experience on the iPhone. This is a reasonable approach. It's one thing for an app on your computer to crash. It's another thing when an app crashes your phone. I've had it happen numerous times on my old Windows Mobile and Palm-based phones. It sucks when you can barely use the phone part of the device to make a call. I've had everything from slow dialing performance to having a phone app hang/freeze the system to having my phone reboot itself. It's frustrating..

slughead said:
First and foremost, there's no way there will EVER be a native instant messaging client. This is because Apple and AT&T make profit on SMS messaging.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Just because we don't have it this second doesn't mean we'll never get it. Other phones on AT&T's network have a native instant messaging client. Your argument sounds good on the surface, but doesn't hold water.

--DotComCTO

P.S. Nice guitar in your profile image. :p
 
Please sir, may I have an app?

This puts the Apple customer in the role of Oliver Twist, and Steve Jobs as the curmudgeon.

Apple made the best decision they could when they decided to go to an open source BSD base for Mac OS and then better yet, provided the tools to support a fairly large sized open source development community. Heck, you can download apps from Apple's own website.

So, why is this model great for Macs and not the iPhone? Why are they concerned with "stability" on the phone but not their computers?
 
I for one trust the "hacking" community WAY more than EA when it comes to developing software that doesn't slow down/screw up my computer or phone...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back