[Billujk9]

Those pundits! How I hate them so.

Damn them...damn them to HELL.

[bastion]

josu, on 22 January 2013 - 01:02 PM, said:

Given that those pundits now consider that Steve Jobs was a flawless manager, something that in life probably never have suggested, this guy must remember that was Steve himself who bought Power Computing, the mac clone maker, to close it, because he considered licencing one of the biggest mistakes prior to his return to Apple.

You've misremembered. What happened was that Apple bought back Power's license to build Mac clones. Apple did *not* buy Power Computing outright. Power moved on quite happily to a very short-lived existence as a second-tier (charitably) white box PC manufacturer.

[lwdesign]

The problem with most "journalists" is that instead of really researching factual information such as number of sales, quantity of money in the bank, phone activations, percentages of increases of sales, etc.--they simply read what other "journalists" have written and parrot back whatever Apple-bashing rumor is currently popular. It's a seedy business, but then it's really HARD to do real research, and it takes so much time and effort! It's much easier to simply sit down at a keyboard and bang out a piece based on conjecture and a know-best attitude.
What is unfortunate is that the general public doesn't know any better than to believe these "journalists" which can affect stock prices and confidence. Not everyone has access to the Macalope, and that's a real shame. Hey 'lope! Why not get yourself syndicated and your articles placed in all kinds of different newspapers and magazines? Share your "journalist" bashing wisdom with the masses and not just with us already-convinced Macworld readers.

[ingus]

Quote

Not only did the iPod not happen, but apparently the iMac, too. Among the several problems with this article is the fact that all things considered, the 1980s weren't that bad for Apple. Apple's real problems started when John Sculley decided to turn the developer program into a profit center at the end of that decade, and the turnaround began with the announcement of the iMac nearly a decade later. The iPods and later iOS devices pushed Apple to juggernaut status, but they were already on an upswing 3+ years before the first iPod shipped.

I don't know what Scully did then about the developer program, but now doesn't it cost a $100 (revocable) membership and 30% in the App store?

[bastion]

ingus, on 22 January 2013 - 03:06 PM, said:

Quote

Not only did the iPod not happen, but apparently the iMac, too. Among the several problems with this article is the fact that all things considered, the 1980s weren't that bad for Apple. Apple's real problems started when John Sculley decided to turn the developer program into a profit center at the end of that decade, and the turnaround began with the announcement of the iMac nearly a decade later. The iPods and later iOS devices pushed Apple to juggernaut status, but they were already on an upswing 3+ years before the first iPod shipped.

I don't know what Scully did then about the developer program, but now doesn't it cost a $100 (revocable) membership and 30% in the App store?

Distributing software through the app store requires a $100 annual fee plus 30% of revenue. If you want to distribute through the app store, these terms actually work out in a quite reasonable way financially. But, of course, you are not required to distribute through the app store, and if you don't wish to there's no fee (and of course no percentage).

Sculley introduced the first-ever fee for membership in the Apple developer programs. It was more than $100, nearly 25 years ago - so relatively even more expensive than the dollar-for-dollar comparison suggests. That fee also only gave you less developer support than you get now and a license to use the basic Mac technologies in your software. Anything "interesting" was an extra fee. Again, this change came just as Windows was becoming a platform worth developing for, and programmers with experience in event-driven programming - which at the time basically meant "Mac programmers" - were being actively courted and catered to by Windows-focused vendors. The registered developer rolls plummeted, and didn't get back to their pre-debacle levels until the iMac.

This post has been edited by bastion: 22 January 2013 - 06:26 PM

[ingus]

bastion, on 22 January 2013 - 06:21 PM, said:

ingus, on 22 January 2013 - 03:06 PM, said:

Quote

Not only did the iPod not happen, but apparently the iMac, too. Among the several problems with this article is the fact that all things considered, the 1980s weren't that bad for Apple. Apple's real problems started when John Sculley decided to turn the developer program into a profit center at the end of that decade, and the turnaround began with the announcement of the iMac nearly a decade later. The iPods and later iOS devices pushed Apple to juggernaut status, but they were already on an upswing 3+ years before the first iPod shipped.

I don't know what Scully did then about the developer program, but now doesn't it cost a $100 (revocable) membership and 30% in the App store?

Distributing software through the app store requires a $100 annual fee plus 30% of revenue. If you want to distribute through the app store, these terms actually work out in a quite reasonable way financially. But, of course, you are not required to distribute through the app store, and if you don't wish to there's no fee (and of course no percentage).

Sculley introduced the first-ever fee for membership in the Apple developer programs. It was more than $100, nearly 25 years ago - so relatively even more expensive than the dollar-for-dollar comparison suggests. That fee also only gave you less developer support than you get now and a license to use the basic Mac technologies in your software. Anything "interesting" was an extra fee. Again, this change came just as Windows was becoming a platform worth developing for, and programmers with experience in event-driven programming - which at the time basically meant "Mac programmers" - were being actively courted and catered to by Windows-focused vendors. The registered developer rolls plummeted, and didn't get back to their pre-debacle levels until the iMac.

Thanks for the history lesson. I didn't know. Yes, that was indeed pretty stupid. Still today, the development program on iOS is run as a profit center.
Today, is there a way to legally sell an application on iOS, without requiring the user to jailbreak, and without the app store? No, not a web app. Native.

[driverdan]

Does PED know that Fortune is now serving link bait, ala Forbes? He might be concerned.

The Freelancer who crapped this out for Fortune must be the nephew of someone of their board or something. Embarrassing. Brings down the tone of the whole enterprise, it does.

[bastion]

ingus, on 22 January 2013 - 06:46 PM, said:

Thanks for the history lesson. I didn't know. Yes, that was indeed pretty stupid. Still today, the development program on iOS is run as a profit center.

No, it is not. It is run as a break-even center. Most of what Apple retains from the revenue of paid apps goes to local taxing authorities in the various sales regions, and the remainder covers operating costs. This is exactly what Sculley didn't realize until 20 years too late. Apple's interest in developers is not in extracting fees from them as a primary source of revenue. It's the value their products add to the platform that makes millions of consumers more likely to buy.

Quote

Today, is there a way to legally sell an application on iOS, without requiring the user to jailbreak, and without the app store? No, not a web app. Native.

Technically, yes, but it's not practical for any kind of general interest product.

[KPOM]

I'm sure the Macalope will like this person's "solution" to "fix" Apple.

http://finance.yahoo...-122134336.html

[wardoggie]

KPOM, on 24 January 2013 - 06:24 AM, said:

I'm sure the Macalope will like this person's "solution" to "fix" Apple.

http://finance.yahoo...-122134336.html

Ha!

[THGD]

Thanks Macalope for another great goring of an idiot pundit.
Just a small fact... Apple's previous cash balance was the $121 Billion you reported, however during this last quarter they added a measly $16 Billion making the current total $137.1 Billion.
With lackluster numbers like that, no wonder the stock price took a major dive.