iPhone OS 3.0 Beta 6 has not arrived

[mlemonds]

I agree this seems feasible based on previous releases but then why release an iTunes compatibility update now? At least 4 weeks early if your theory is correct.

i could see an update coming early, ease the load on the servers the day that the software comes out.

i think that a june release in the week of/following WWDC is most likely. I think that Software Update would have gotten most computers up to 8.2 by that time

 

[kisbys]

getting a subsidized phone versus an unsubsidized phone is a little different. the beta is not offered to non developers. an unsubsidized phone is offered to non subscribers at a higher price.

i see apple reserving the beta to developers as a way to minimize customer support claims. the people that are in the dev program are generally more technically aware of ways to fix simple problems with software and restore their phones to a pre-beta state in case something goes wrong with a beta release. i also think that developers would be able to provide more accurate and detailed reports of bugs and problems that they encounter with the software. given the choice, i would take quality information over quantity

While I agree an unsubsidised phone is availiable at a much higher price, my, probably bad, example was that it is all part of the contract... its an added benefit and as such must and part of the package of being a developer... there for part of the cost of the $99 must go towards this for its intangiable value. in this case its call goodwill which is a cost and when the 3.0 main software comes out this will be amortised down... in accounting speak!!

Its the same for when you get the updated software apple aren't doing this out of the kindness of their heart you are paying for it when you brought the phone and by paying the subscription. and apple will account for it that way in unearned revenue until your contract runs out and you buy a new phone.

 

[mlemonds]

While I agree an unsubsidised phone is availiable at a much higher price, my, probably bad, example was that it is all part of the contract... its an added benefit and as such must and part of the package of being a developer... there for part of the cost of the $99 must go towards this for its intangiable value. in this case its call goodwill which is a cost and when the 3.0 main software comes out this will be amortised down... in accounting speak!!

Its the same for when you get the updated software apple aren't doing this out of the kindness of their heart you are paying for it when you brought the phone and by paying the subscription. and apple will account for it that way in unearned revenue until your contract runs out and you buy a new phone.

if the cost of the new software revisions is built into the cost of the platform (iPhone in this case) then everyone is paying for the 3.0 beta, not just the developers. i dont work for apple and am not an accountant, but the money made from the developer program is not likely set aside to fund the coding on new iphone software releases. it wouldn't cover all the expenses. the 3.0 beta and 3.0 final release is all part of the same project.

apple doesn't release SL betas to everyone. does the SL beta cost money?

 

[kisbys]

if the cost of the new software revisions is built into the cost of the platform (iPhone in this case) then everyone is paying for the 3.0 beta, not just the developers. i dont work for apple and am not an accountant, but the money made from the developer program is not likely set aside to fund the coding on new iphone software releases. it wouldn't cover all the expenses. the 3.0 beta and 3.0 final release is all part of the same project.

apple doesn't release SL betas to everyone. does the SL beta cost money?

Actually yes the Beta costs in R&D will be expensed and but a contributing factor will be the developement in this stage and the special requirements to allow it to be released to such a large audience compared to when the 2.0 beta's were in testing.

They had to massively update their facilities such as tech support, servers big enough to support the downloads of both of the softwares and the dedicated numbers for a support desk. These can all be expensed against the developer program.

So yes the Beta does cost money...

 

[luv2hum]

as long as beta 5 doesnt expire, im in no rush for beta 6, although i do think the next version we see will be the final..

 

[mlemonds]

Actually yes the Beta costs in R&D will be expensed and but a contributing factor will be the developement in this stage and the special requirements to allow it to be released to such a large audience compared to when the 2.0 beta's were in testing.

They had to massively update their facilities such as tech support, servers big enough to support the downloads of both of the softwares and the dedicated numbers for a support desk. These can all be expensed against the developer program.

So yes the Beta does cost money...

how does the beta require more server capacity and tech support than the final 3.0 release? they have to have this capacity already in place for when the software becomes public. if the iphone did not play games, and allow 3rd party app support, how would software updates be paid for. i think that the dev money goes into the infrastructure for them to produce and sell their programs

 

[kisbys]

how does the beta require more server capacity and tech support than the final 3.0 release? they have to have this capacity already in place for when the software becomes public. if the iphone did not play games, and allow 3rd party app support, how would software updates be paid for. i think that the dev money goes into the infrastructure for them to produce and sell their programs

Of course it does go into the infrastructure, but do you the telephone operators that help out the devs with technical issues on iphone 3.0 pays for itself, or how about the people who have to go through the emails with bug reports and catogarise them (I know they would be there but with a large scale release their has to be more). Most importantly even though this is a Beta software so at risk there has to be somebody signing off on it so it didn't brick everysingle dev phone (fine to brick a couple of apples personal ones). There has to be a bigger legal department for the wider reaching disclamers...

And if the iphone did not play games and such the software updates would be payed for out of the subscription model as before however what I'm talking about are the added costs of releasing it to the much wider audience that are involved and the added diligence before releasing each build...

 

[mlemonds]

the point that i am getting at is that i dont see how the OS is getting paid for any greater amount by the dev fee than it is by hardware sales or the 30% that is made off of app sales.

i dont see how the $99 spent towards the developer program is being rerouted out of the developer program to fund creating the OS.

if apple decided to publicly release the beta, do you think they would you to download it?

 

[sam3020]

i have just been on the developer site. they have updated the developer site with some new stuff. this could mean there releasing a new beta today

 

[kisbys]

the point that i am getting at is that i dont see how the OS is getting paid for any greater amount by the dev fee than it is by hardware sales or the 30% that is made off of app sales.

i dont see how the $99 spent towards the developer program is being rerouted out of the developer program to fund creating the OS.

if apple decided to publicly release the beta, do you think they would you to download it?

I'm not saying all the $99 is going to paying for it but what I'm saying is some of it is being used. lets be frank are you saying that it has cost Apple absolutely nothing to allow the devs to download the beta compared to keeping it in house and to a select few as with iphone 2.0??? if not then that money has to go against the 99$ because they are the recipients...

 

[detz]

People seem to think that Apple releases the new version as a bonus to developers. Apple releases the new OS so we can test it for them for free so they should be paying us. Sure we get the added benefit of testing and using new features but at the cost of bugging and potentially harmful versions. What company charges for beta access to their software?

 

[jsw]

So yes the Beta does cost money...

Yes, of course it costs money to develop and put out a beta.

However, the beta does not cost developers anything to obtain, and it's more appropriate to say that access to the beta (and other things) costs money but that the beta itself is free. If one wanted to say the beta wasn't free, it seems like one would need to be able to put a price on each one. However, since the price for each couldn't be determined until after one knew how many came out during the year of the developer subscription (so you'd divide that into the $99 fee), and since different developers would get different numbers of betas depending on when they joined, it seems silly to say there's a price for the beta. There isn't.

Likewise, it doesn't cost anything to put an app up for sale on iTunes. It costs money to be able to post apps, but it costs nothing to post apps themselves.

Anyway, it's a fun diversion to discuss this, but I'm just hoping beta 6 is out soon.

 

[HDCrusty]

come on that's not fair. my apple crashes more than my Vista and Windows 7 RC1 combined.

it is arrogant apple users like you that bash Windows that have no real evidence on Windows being unstable. Windows Vista is very stable and usable. I bet you don't even use it or have never used it before. How can you say it is a beta when in fact it is on SP1 and almost released for SP2. you seem uneducated and 13. Macs crash and are just as unstable as any OS. name me one OS that is perfect. I bet you cant.

you are a "racist" towards computers. you can't compare one computer to another let alone another OS against another. that is stupid.

I am a Mac user and a Windows user and honestly they're both great.

Well I can name one and most of the users on this fourm most likely never heard of it. The perfect OS is Open VMS the longest running OS without reboot, crashes and so on. If I remember correctly the system has been up and running for 5 plus years. Windows and Apple have come a long way but are still way behind. So let's start talking about the important stuff like how to make the OS better not which one is better. Because no OS can catch up Open VMS.

 

[zookster]

Well I can name one and most of the users on this fourm most likely never heard of it. The perfect OS is Open VMS the longest running OS without reboot, crashes and so on. If I remember correctly the system has been up and running for 5 plus years. Windows and Apple have come a long way but are still way behind. So let's start talking about the important stuff like how to make the OS better not which one is better. Because no OS can catch up Open VMS.

There are facilities who have been running "Mainframes" for over 30 years without a reboot. We can honestly say, they are not running Windows. You can't say 30 days without a reboot for Windows.

As for the $99, this is accounting folks. Of course it is going into R&D. Is it covering it all? Not even close. Just how it works. R&D is a "cost center," not a "profit center" for most corporations. When companies start treating R&D as a profit center, that is when companies get into trouble.

Not that complicated.

John

 

[JiminSD]

People seem to think that Apple releases the new version as a bonus to developers. Apple releases the new OS so we can test it for them for free so they should be paying us. Sure we get the added benefit of testing and using new features but at the cost of bugging and potentially harmful versions. What company charges for beta access to their software?

I think Apple could release this software without the use of such a large beta testing program, but it would take longer and the samll developer/users would not have the opportunity to contribute to the development. As far as Apple making money on the fees charged to developers, fat chance it probably doesn't cover the overhead cost of the beta testing program much less the software development.