Flash Player 10.2 is out, do you want the optimized Flash Player on iPad?

[fertilized-egg]

I did not say that, you are so desperate to make your point (that native app are popular, which is irrelevent) that now you take what I say, put it in your own word based on your interpretation,

You're back tracking furiously. Let me quote you directly as you want. It'll be a long one because I don't want to take your words out of context.

Sit down, empty your mind and think really really hard: If I build my applications with Flash (3 millions of us do) and I can put that application everywhere and I can make money with it on the web without to pay a dime, what do you think will happen when I want to put that app on iPhone and have to do it as native app with 30% tax from Apple instead of freely in the browser? I will pass that cost to you and you will pay Apple's 30% tax, not me, not Android users, not anyone with a Flash enabled browser, you will pay more on iOS for the exact same Flash application. Once again, nothing you can do about it, just sit and watch.
...
You can say what you want, APPLE USERS WILL PAY MORE FOR THE SAME EXACT FLASH APPLICATIONS ON IOS AS NATIVE APPS BECAUSE WE WILL PASS APPLE 30% TAX TO END USER, NO ONE WILL HAVE TO PAY FOR APPLE 30% IN THE BROWSER. Developers already made their choice, there are 3 million flash developers, how many iOS developers? 100k? lol
...
I can tell you Flash Platform will be #1 application development environment by the end of the year, I bet you whatever you want. And Apple's users will pay more for the same exact apps until Apple allow Flash in the browsers on iOS.
...
Its called free competition my friend and it will not destroy anyone, it will just lower the absolutely megalomaniac 30% tax on everything because when Apple will have competition in the browser then they will not be able to surcharge their customers anymore, they can control native apps but not the web.
...
if the tax is reasonable, like a credit card transaction, publishers will absorb it and put their same Flash app from the web available as native app for the convenience of the customer who at the end is the one to decide whether browser is good enough or not. Right now Apple is overtaxing just because it is not possible to compete with native app in the browser.

So I don't see how else I can interpret your quotes there.

You clearly claimed:

1. Web apps will be popular because developers will want to avoid selling their apps through app stores
2. Developers will pass 30% "tax" to customers in app stores
3. Users will be using web apps far more because it's much cheaper
4. Because of popularity of web apps, app stores will be forced to lower their fees drastically (I used the word drastic because you used creditcard fee, which is about 10 times lower than the standard app store rate as a "reasonable" example)
5. Other platform users will be enjoying web apps and reduced app store rate, only iOS users will be paying more for their apps because there's no competition from web apps for the Apple app store.

Again the problem is, all your premises have been shown to be utterly false in real life.

- People love using app store much more than going through other individual channels.
- Everyone, including Google, Amazon, Nokia, Microsoft, and RIM, is actually moving toward the app store model instead of going away from it.
- Developers are not passing the 30% tax to consumers.

If consumers and developers really hated the 30% "tax" as much as you claim, we would've never had an app store here, but what we see right now is just the opposite.

If you want to prove your theory, you simply have to show great success enjoyed by Android developers who are selling their apps directly to the customers without going through the Google Android market which charges the dreaded 30% "tax." And also you can tell us how Nokia Ovi app store, which was launched fairly late, has been failing compared to the old model of direct sales.

According to you, we should have heard what great business Android developers are enjoying outside the Android market because the developers, in your own words, "WILL PASS 30% (GOOGLE) TAX TO END USER, NO ONE WILL HAVE TO PAY FOR (GOOGLE) 30% IN THE (DOWNLOADED&SIDE LOADED) APPS."

I'd like to hear how many great non-app store Android developer success stories you bring here.

 

[flexengineer]

You clearly claimed:

1. Web apps will be popular because developers will want to avoid selling their apps through app stores

No, web apps are already popular, have you heard of games on Facebook (social games is an entire industry in itself almost, entirely based on Flash), Hulu, Netflix... Lot of business being done in Apps is only so because they cant carry their web based presence into iOS browser and any cost from that is overhead entirely due to Steve Jobs ban on Flash and Silverlight.

I think you are getting confused between things moving from computer to mobile and things moving from web to native app, the latter is Apple best wish but it is not going to happen, yes usage is moving from computer to mobile devices but there is no such thing as all the web becoming native apps. Imagine what fortune that would be for Apple tho!!! They tried, just tried.

What I meant is that if I do business on the web and I can't hit the browser on iOS which forces me to push my app as native app and pay 30% tax on all in-app sales and app sales themselves, I do not pay that on the web, I get 100% of all advertising on my games page and 100% of in-app if I carry the transaction into my application on Facebook, and this is just one example. There is en entire world outside of AppStore, it is called the web. Of course there would be plenty of native apps, but there will be also native apps that cost more money to the end users money which will go straight to Apple. If I do business on the web, I WILL PASS the 30%, or I will bypass iOS all at once if I can't pass the 30%. So, you end up either missing something or paying more for it.

2. Developers will pass 30% "tax" to customers in app stores

Yes, either they will absorb it if they are not forced into AppStore and have a business model based on it, but there will be a loofa of cases where the tax will be passed or you will be charged for the app that is free on the web, but something will be passed to the user. When it is not possible, then we will ignore iOS.

3. Users will be using web apps far more because it's much cheaper

I never said it that way, never said far more. If Amazon takes on Netflix at 40% cheaper in the browser, iOS users will not be able to get that better pricing, I do not understand what part you do not understand. There will be more and more web based offering that will beat pricing of native apps and those apps will be in the browser so every single of them that is Flash will not be available in the browser on iOS. Tax again.

4. Because of popularity of web apps, app stores will be forced to lower their fees drastically (I used the word drastic because you used creditcard fee, which is about 10 times lower than the standard app store rate as a "reasonable" example)

Credit card was an example, I never said any amount, you made it up. I meant a "fee" and not a "tax". When app stores will be in competition with the browser or web based AppStores, then it will lower fees and taxes across the board.

5. Other platform users will be enjoying web apps and reduced app store rate, only iOS users will be paying more for their apps because there's no competition from web apps for the Apple app store.

No, other platforms users will be enjoying web apps and normally priced applications or games on non Apple AppStores, iOS will pay more only for apps that should be web based and are forced into native apps by the ban of Flash OR any apps that has to pay to Apple 30% in-app tax that they would not pay on Android for example.

 

[fertilized-egg]

No, web apps are already popular

It is? I've been using Flash-enabled Android phones for a while and Flash web apps are definitely not popular on the Android platform. We're talking about mobile platforms, not desktop.

there will be also native apps that cost more money to the end users money which will go straight to Apple. I WILL PASS the 30%,
...
Yes, either they will absorb it if they are not forced into AppStore and have a business model based on it, but there will be a loofa of cases where the tax will be passed or you will be charged for the app that is free on the web,
...
No, other platforms users will be enjoying web apps and normally priced applications or games on non Apple AppStores, iOS will pay more only for apps that should be web based and are forced into native apps by the ban of Flash.

You still haven't answered my question. If what you claim about the effect of the 30% "tax" is true, why aren't Android developers bypassing the Android market and sell apps directly from their website 30% cheaper? They are not forced to to use the Android market. They can sell it directly through websites.

Also why is Nokia Ovi app store doing great? Why not sell apps directly without paying Nokia anything? Why is anyone selling their apps through the Mac OSX appstore? According to you the 30% tax must have killed every app store where sideloading is available. Why do they exist? Are developers passing the 30% "tax" down to consumers in those app stores as you claim?

 

[flexengineer]

It is? I've been using Flash-enabled Android phones for a while and Flash web apps are definitely not popular on the Android platform. We're talking about mobile platforms, not desktop.

The Flash player got into mobile on July 2010, Flex which is the primary application development SDK to build solid robust and scalable apps is just about to be released with full support for all mobile gestures and features, those are going to be the killer apps, until Flex 4.5 is released those Flex apps on the web will not hit the mobile. Giants like T-Mobile are currently building gigantic apps (might be more than an app, I just know it's big) entirely based on 4.5, meaning they developped with the beta version of the SDK to hit first. Check it out for yourself:

http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flex/articles/mobile_development_hero_burrito.html

You still haven't answered my question. If what you claim about the effect of the 30% "tax" is true, why aren't Android developers bypassing the Android market and sell apps directly from their website 30% cheaper? They are not forced to to use the Android market. They can sell it directly through websites.

I can only speak for Flash, Flex and AIR apps. The reason why web based Flash apps did not hit yet is because they will are based on Flex 4.5 which is about to get out of beta, those Flex 4.5 apps are being built as we speak.

Also why is Nokia Ovi app store doing great? Why not sell apps directly without paying Nokia anything? Why is anyone selling their apps through the Mac OSX appstore? According to you the 30% tax must have killed every app store where sideloading is available. Why do they exist? Are developers passing the 30% "tax" down to consumers in those app stores as you claim?

I think I responded to that with my answers above, you will see the full effect of web based apps on mobile this year, there is just NO other serious solid technology to build those web apps into the browser, you can't without a plugin and we all know how Silverlight is, Flash is the only option for solid web based app so until Flex 4.5 comes out it's basically not possible to make them work on mobile browsers.

 

[fertilized-egg]

I can only speak for Flash, Flex and AIR apps.
... you will see the full effect of web based apps on mobile this year, there is just NO other serious solid technology to build those web apps into the browser ...
Flash is the only option for solid web based app

My point is, the developers can already sell native apps directly to consumers through their website. Your theory has already been tested in the market.

You said the web apps will be cheaper because the developers wouldn't have to pay the 30% tax to the store keeper. But Android and Symbian developers can already do that if they want to, but they mostly don't do it.

Why not? Because developers have already tried what you suggest by selling the apps directly and it sucked. They found out paying the "tax" to get their apps into the app store actually makes their revenue go up. Since the developers are getting more customers and competing against each other within the app store, they don't pass the tax. If anything it often lowers the price due to the increased revenue from the bigger customer base.

What I keep telling you is that your theoretical non-appstore apps have already been tried and failed in the mobile sector. People actually like using app store and developers are willing to pay. The main complainers are not the developers but the content middlemen who make money by getting cuts in selling content.

 

[flexengineer]

My point is, the developers can already sell native apps directly to consumers through their website. Your theory has already been tested in the market.

I think we are having a semantic misunderstanding, I am talking about large established or emerging and game changing web based applications that support an entire business operation. I am not talking about the independant developer who makes his personal app and relies entirely on and needs a store to generate sales.

I am talking about the business of offering access to premium movies either as pay per view or as purchases or as subscription, or the business of offering access to music (music marketing is one of the main subject of my personal researches, I believe we are heading toward a new era where we will pay for the ease of access more than the underlying content).

Let's make up an example, let's Hulu gets the right to stream on mobiles in the browser, they will not be able to on iOS, they will have to be a native apps which is another license all in itself, and a middle man with 30% cut for all upgrade, pay per view, subscription, it's a serious tax!

What I am trying to say is that those large scale web based media, entertainment, games are coming into the browser on mobile and they are doing so through the Flash Platform.

This year we will see we based business going native only on iOS an d whatever cost that creates will be either passed (they will charge you for the app that is free online for instance if they cant pass the tax per se), or iOS will be by passed. Only applications meant to be native for a reason or from developers who needs the store will have and should be paying the tax.

You said the web apps will be cheaper because the developers wouldn't have to pay the 30% tax to the store keeper. But Android and Symbian developers can already do that if they want to, but they mostly don't do it.

What do you mean by the can do that? How do they build Flash based web application that works in the browser on Android and Symbian? It can't be Flex or it is not optimized for Mobile and looks like a web site.

Only Flex brings Flash to mobile browser in a serious fashion, anything that is not build with Flex 4.5 is not what I am talking about when I say killer Flash apps. Those apps will make the difference.

Why not? Because developers have already tried what you suggest by selling the apps directly and it sucked. They found out paying the "tax" to get their apps into the app store actually makes their revenue go up. Since the developers are getting more customers and competing against each other within the app store, they don't pass the tax. If anything it often lowers the price due to the increased revenue from the bigger customer base.

I really think we did not talk about the same thing since get go, I am not talking about small apps by individual developers, I am talking about web based business operations that if Flash based most of the time when it gets to media, entertainment and financial or large scale data management.

If tomorrow I start a business that allows users to get all their console games in the browser, like www.otoy.com, and I based that in Flash or Javascript or Silverlight in the browser, it will never be available to iOS users in the browser so I will make a native app just for them (my business is web based, I get 100% of subscription everywhere else) and I will leave it web based everywhere else and I will pass the 30% to Apple's users because I only pay it on Apple's iOS and it is because of Apple's decision to ban Flash, none of my business. Am I making any sense at all?

 

[EssentialParado]

Intuit in Montain View is trying to recruit me as we speak for a contract, so I might be able to make it better

Though I can't speak for them, as current director of a software dev company I wouldn't hire anybody who is spending a significant amount of their day arguing over hollow issues on an internet forum.

 

[flexengineer]

Though I can't speak for them, as current director of a software dev company I wouldn't hire anybody who is spending a significant amount of their day arguing over hollow issues on an internet forum.

I'm off this week, I am doing technology assessment, I can multitask and chat on a forums thank you very much. Until you sign my checks whatever you think is none of my interest, check my linkedin to see what my clients think of me.

 

[BaldiMac]

(my business is web based, I get 100% of subscription everywhere else)

And by 100%, you actually mean what?

Transaction fees, infrastructure, operating costs, advertising, distribution are still going to cost something. Than you have the loss of potential revenue from iOS users, considering that's where most of the money is coming from in mobile apps. I wonder how close to 30% that actually is.

 

[flexengineer]

And by 100%, you actually mean what?

Transaction fees, infrastructure, operating costs, advertising, distribution are still going to cost something. Than you have the loss of potential revenue from iOS users, considering that's where most of the money is coming from in mobile apps. I wonder how close to 30% that actually is.

You amaze me, I guess we will have to wait and see if those web based businesses are going to make themselves dependable of Apple with a 30% global tax or if they focus on the web and threat iOS as second class users, after all it's falling at what 20% something in term of device? Apple can't shift the market anymore so you say this, I say that, we will agree to disagree and wait until the web based killer apps I am talking about hit the market.

Do you realize you are talking about companies like Netdlix, Hulu, major studios, TV networks, all those people who conduct business on the wen are going to leave the web on mobile where they already and go native just because Steve Jobs tried to single hand the mobile market and kill the web for convenience? I do not see how more delusional we could get over the subject. It is not going to happen, I do not believe so, you disagree, we shall see.

 

[BaldiMac]

You amaze me, I guess we will have to wait and see if those web based businesses are going to make themselves dependable of Apple with a 30% global tax or if they focus on the web and threat iOS as second class users,

Why do you refuse to answer a clear, simple question?

You posted that as a web-based business, you "get 100% of subscription." Obviously, you mispoke or intentionally provided misinformation. I asked for a clarification.

after all it's falling at what 20% something in term of device? Apple can't shift the market anymore so you say this, I say that, we will agree to disagree and wait until the web based killer app I am talking about hit the market.

Nope. Still growing. More misinformation from you.

 

[flexengineer]

Why do you refuse to answer a clear, simple question? You posted that as a web-based business, you "get 100% of subscription." Obviously, you mispoke or intentionally provided misinformation. I asked for a clarification.

Yes, Netflix get 100% for subscriptions on the web, Hulu gets 100% of subscriptions and pay per view on the web, if Disney sells something on the web they get 100% of it all, if I put a game on Facebook I get 100% of all advertising and all in app sales (have you heard of those stupid games like Farmville with how many millions of players? crazy), if I put an application on Facebook I get 100% of advertising and 100% on in-app sales, when iCoach.com sell subscriptions on the web they get 100%, when Otoy.com will sell subscriptions (they are incibating) on the web they will get 100%. All those are or will be so popular that the last thing they need is AppStore to make millions so why in hell would they have to go native and give away a 30% cut? They are still paying the infrastructure (servers, bandwidth), they are still paying for the development, they are still paying for advertising, they simply do not need Apple but the problem really is they could take iTunes over from the web and big chunk of AppStore too so Apple tried desperately to keep Flash out but they fell to divide the Flash developers community, so now they are screwed because whoever, no matter who, does business on the web and offer something that is offered in native apps for cheaper will become popular, Apple is not the only company having money to launch a product, money for those grows in trees in Silicon Valley. Once popular and not on iOS, that is when it starts smelling like gas for Apple. I believe most of those applications will be Flash because of the technology advantage that has no equal.

Nope. Still growing. More misinformation from you.

Right, 0.2% over year, probably the last year there is no "-" before the number. Once again, I do not care about how much money Apple makes, I care about how much market share they have and how much market leverage they have because I am a developer not an etrade gamer.

 

[BaldiMac]

Yes, Netflix get 100% for subscriptions on the web, Hulu gets 100% of subscriptions and pay per view on the web, if Disney sells something on the web they get 100% of it all, if I put a game on Facebook I get 100% of all advertising and all in app sales (have you heard of those stupid games like Farmville with how many millions of players? crazy), if I put an application on Facebook I get 100% of advertising and 100% on in-app sales, when iCoach.com sell subscriptions on the web they get 100%, when Otoy.com will sell subscriptions (they are incibating) on the web they will get 100%. All those are or will be so popular that the last thing they need is AppStore to make millions so why in hell would they have to go native and give away a 30% cut? They are still paying the infrastructure (servers, bandwidth), they are still paying for the development, they are still paying for advertising, they simply do not need Apple but the problem really is they could take iTunes over from the web and big chunk of AppStore too so Apple tried desperately to keep Flash out but they fell to divide the Flash developers community, so now they are screwed because whoever, no matter who, does business on the web and offer something that is offered in native apps for cheaper will become popular, Apple is not the only way having money to launch a product. Once popular and not on iOS, that is when it starts smelling like gas for Apple.

Wow. So expenses only count when you pay Apple. At the very least, the absolute simplest example, to prove you wrong is transactions fees. And, believe it or not, there are actually other benefits to being in the App Store.

Right, 0.2% over year, probably the last year there is no "-" before the number. Once again, I do not care about how much money Apple makes, I care about how much market share they have and how much market leverage they have because I am a developer not an etrade gamer.

No, an estimated 0.2% growth in U.S. smartphone subscriber share quarter over quarter for the iPhone. The year over year growth will likely be around 4-5% for Apple and 5-6% for Google if the numbers that you are referring to are correct and correlate to market share.

First Quarter 2010
https://www.macrumors.com/2010/05/1...ales-exceed-iphone-in-the-u-s-for-first-time/

iPhone 21%
Android 28%

February Quarter 2011
https://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/0...sales-in-february-as-android-surge-continues/

iPhone 25.2%
Android 33.0%


And whether it is 0.2% or 20% growth is irrelevant. You again posted misinformation when you said it's falling. And compounded it by claiming quarter over quarter data as year over year.

 

[flexengineer]

Wow. So expenses only count when you pay Apple.

You are implying that it would be cost effective to pay Apple 30% rather than those companies handling their business on their own and it is crazy. Only developers who make applications and games from their second bedroom or small businesses need AppStore.

At the very least, the absolute simplest example, to prove you wrong is transactions fees.

There we go, playing the same game... You are right, at that level of volume the credit card transaction cost is probably 0.05% so let's say we replace all my 100% by 99.5, happy? Because everything else the businesses already pay for it, Apple does not provide anything those businesses I am talking about need, they operate on the WEB.

And, believe it or not, there are actually other benefits to being in the App Store.

Like what?

No, an estimated 0.2% growth in U.S. smartphone subscriber share quarter over quarter for the iPhone.

That is right, which I consider more representative of the trend, sorry for saying "over the year". I am interested in now, not last year when everything was all golden for iPhone. We will see what iPad and iPhone market share will be this year with 50 new tablets and 35 new phones supporting Flash, and that is only for the devices we knew about in December 2010. Apple fans better pray Flash does not take off!

So let me reformulate, even tho everything else might be growing for Apple, their market share is starting a reverse progress, like you know when it stop going up and start to make that lil circle toward the 0 instead of the 100?

 

[leftyMac]

guys, it's really about having a choice. if a user wants to view a Flash site (or siverlight site, or whatever), acknowledging that it'll cost some extra CPU usage, then that option should be given. period. just have the flash disabled as default. whether Flash is viable technology, only time will tell. iPad is supposed to be a content consumption devise, yet it's limiting the content by not having Flash enabled. it's like eating unsweetened brownies. Flash is there. Safari is there. it doesn't take a rocket scientist to put both of them in Ipad. the choice should be made by the users. very simple. I love apple, but sorry, apple, this time, you fail.

 

[Maaz]

Honestly. An option would be nice. But default should be off.

 

[annk]

I think everyone would benefit from a break from this thread, so I've closed it.