No, the free SDK will only let you run applications on the Simulator. You can't install on the iPhone at all unless you are a $99/year developer.
arn
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.
iPhone 2.0, iPhone SDK, and iPhone Apps Frequently Asked Questions
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No, the free SDK will only let you run applications on the Simulator. You can't install on the iPhone at all unless you are a $99/year developer.
arn
They can do whatever they want, that doesnt mean the public can. I saw them playing games, i cant get them though. From what it sounds like arn is saying, if you pay the $99 you will be able to run the apps on your iPhone.
I am skeptical that your app will be yanked from the store if you stop paying the $99/year. You might lose the ability to update it. But I haven't seen an explicit statement from Apple that they will erase it from the store. After all, wouldn't Apple rather keep the app on there? The more apps available to help drive iPhone sales, the better, I'd think they'd say.
The FAQ needs slightly modified. It gives the impression that the applications will be bought from the iTunes store, which is correct but in the context of the iPhone this is wrong as the main distribution method will be the App Store, just wondering if you want to clarify that and clean up the article to make that subtle difference more obvious.
I'm not sure that AOL had anything to do with developing the software for other devices, though. But it'd certainly be in their best interest to make the software free and the best IM client available, because certainly they won't be the only ones releasing an AIM client for the iPhone. And my thought with advertising was less about AIM in particular, and more just in general about that as a revenue model instead of/in addition to charging for apps. It could even be like some desktop apps where you get it for free with ads or you pay and there are no ads.
i was going to ask the question, what happenes when you have wifi or edge turned off...but then AIM would not function as it requires the internet....
but for applications that dont need an active internet connection...would the ads be stored in a cache on the device to be served, or would they stream.....
and would apple even allow native ads in the device?
That really sucks if it is the case. I'd want to be able to upload my home-grown apps to my own device, just as I can with my Windows Mobile device. There's no way I'm going to pay $99 a year (or, given I'm in the UK, probably something more like £79 = $160) for the 'privilege' of just doing that though.
That really sucks if it is the case. I'd want to be able to upload my home-grown apps to my own device, just as I can with my Windows Mobile device. There's no way I'm going to pay $99 a year (or, given I'm in the UK, probably something more like £79 = $160) for the 'privilege' of just doing that though.
I suspect that is the case only for the next few months (Until 2.0 firmware is distributed to everyone).
Today the $99 fee gets you two things. First is early beta access to the 2.0 firmware which is required to upload applications to the iPhone/touch. It also gets you access in June to the iTunes App Store. But once you have the right firmware on your iPhone/touch you can use the SDK to upload to it (you don't go thru iTunes).
So if you wait long enough I suspect the free SDK will be able to put whatever you want on your own iPhone/touch. The $99 fee paid every year will then just be required if you plan on selling things through the App Store on iTunes.
iphone 2.0 final = 3g
I read that the final 2.0 will support new iPhone hardware, namely 3g chipset. found that on http://www.personafile.com/products
I read that the final 2.0 will support new iPhone hardware, namely 3g chipset. found that on http://www.personafile.com/products
Really? If that were the case, then what would stop me from being able to distribute my own app to anyone else, so subverting the App Store? All anyone would need, at worst, would be a copy of the SDK to upload to their device, which seems to go against what was said at yesterday's presentation.
Trust me, installing the SDK is NO EASY TASK. (Just getting it and installing it was a 8+ hour ordeal). That is a HUGE barrier, believe me. I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of computer nerds would not be able to carry out that task.
It would also be a very easy thing to ensure that you could only install an application generated by the a specific SDK onto a specific iPhone/touch (signed/keyed). Not too many developers would be happy having to distribute source code that could be compiled on somebody else's SDK I bet.
But what is the advantage of cutting out the App Store in the first place? To save the 30% fee I take it? How much does it cost to host a web service and get exposure for an application. 30% doesn't seem too bad to me given the exposure you get (10-20million potential customers added each year).
You may be right, I don't have my $99 key yet, but what I've read is that the version 2.0 firmware is the real enabler, not the annual fee. We shall see.
Still Having Trouble
I am a registered developer at apple and go to developer.apple.com and click on iPhone Dev and log in and then all i get is "We are processing your request. Please wait a few moments then refresh this page." I got this all today and yesterday. This is ridiculous. Apple needs to get this together!
How have you got past this? Thanks!
I am a registered developer at apple and go to developer.apple.com and click on iPhone Dev and log in and then all i get is "We are processing your request. Please wait a few moments then refresh this page." I got this all today and yesterday. This is ridiculous. Apple needs to get this together!
How have you got past this? Thanks!
I was raising it only because the implication was that this should not be possible. However the advantage for me of cutting out the App Store is that I want to write hobbyist apps, and I'm not bothered about writing stuff for cash (I do that for a day job!). I'd like to be able to write an app, stick it on my device, maybe give a copy to a mate, and maybe stick it on my own website for free in case anyone else might find it of use - all without having to pay $99, thanks very much!
There's no way I'm going to pay $99 a year (or, given I'm in the UK, probably something more like £79 = $160) for the 'privilege' of just doing that though.
That's the point. There's no reason to be testing on a device unless you intend to distribute the app through iTunes. If everyone were able to put apps on their devices through Xcode, then developers and hackers could distribute Xcode Projects, and Apple no longer has any control over third party software.
Really? No reason? I thought I'd given a very valid reason, which is what I've been doing for the past 27 years - writing my own software and running it on my own devices. I guess I must be an anarchist
What I'd like to have seen is something along the lines of the model used on Windows Mobile - to access privileged APIs (mostly phone- or kernel-level), you need to have your app privileged-signed, which costs money. Yet any application using more mainstream APIs is able to be installed (and obviously distributed) freely - there's a prompt when running it the first time to warn that it's not signed, and it's up to the user whether they want to allow it to run. That model works for the hobbyist as they're only minimally constrained on the platform and have no monetary burden to bear, and it works for the networks as "dangerous" use of the devices is protected to a greater or lesser extent.
iphone 3g
this make sense. btw, the permalink for the story is http://www.personafile.com/pproducts.html?up=up0000003150
this make sense. btw, the permalink for the story is http://www.personafile.com/pproducts.html?up=up0000003150