[alansky]

Am I missing something, or has Apple just offered iPhone developers a great marketing opportunity? How can individual iPhone developers hope to place their apps in front of even a small fraction of the huge number of eyeballs they will reach through Apple's App Store? Personally, I think Steve's plan is brilliant.

[pairof9s]

Yeah, count me in the corner of those applauding this announcement. I think it's a great set up for Apple, developers and iPhone users. I'm sure it will have its hiccups along the way but I guess that's the beauty of having a 4 month beta testing period. (Otherwise, I'm bummed having to wait so long!!) But overall, this looks like a solid plan with a great amount of interest. The enterprise solutions alone will help Apple meet its 10 million iPhones target.

When I saw the AIM demo, I p1ssed myself! That is just awesome to see in action. And the game demos mean there will be plenty of those coming down the shoot.

I think the bigger story hovering over this whole event and product is Apple's movement towards this mobile platform and the incredible advantage of the touch screen for an interface. This really feels like the beginning of a new era in computing and communications....much like the day you first saw a Mac and its mouse with "Hello!" on the screen nearly 25 years ago!

/

[macFanDave]

zensunni posted this exact same post in the "Apple Unveil iPhone SDK" story!!

One shouldn't be able to cut-and-paste the same post in multiple places!

Please refer to my rebuttal to zensunni in the aforementioned story. I'm not going to cut-and-paste my response to this phony.

[ggore]

Four more months to wait to actually use anything. "Late June" in business-speak means July 1 or thereabouts.
I don't need AIM on my iPhone, FlickIM, a web app, accesses Yahoo, MSN, and AIM networks RIGHT NOW and works just fine, so no one needs to wait 4 months for that. I don't understand why everyone hates web apps so much, sure they don't do video editing or Photoshop on the phone, but c'mon.
Why in heaven's name didn't anyone ask in the Q&A session why Apple refuses to implement MMS, cut/paste, camera zoom/video, Bluetooth stereo capability, multiple email deletion, or spam filtering, etc? Are we expected to pay for applications that enable the built-in features of this thing? Unbelievable!

[pairof9s]

Perhaps any or all of those issues will be resolved in updates prior to version 2.0 (aka 1.x). I understand and agree w/ your frustration on many of those items (by far, the copy & paste is my biggest gripe), but only time will tell when or if those are addressed by Apple or a 3rd party.

I simply have too much enjoyment using my iPhone to criticize the lack of certain features at this point. It's just a pleasure to use and has drastically changed how I use a mobile "phone".

/

[TheYodaMac]

Picking late June for version 2.0 of the iPhone software sure made my ears (eyes?) perk up.

The timing would sure coincide nicely with the rumored and expected version 2 iPhone HARDWARE as well.

A good way to perhaps get more folks to pick up a new iPhone instead of just updating their current one...

(can't wait til June!)

[kwill]

a??The way we account for the iPhone is with subscription accounting, so we take the revenue over two years,a??
I wonder if means that iPhone users will be charged for enhancements that occur after 2 years. :(

[XAviS]

They haven't been the thought-police over podcasts; what justification have you to think they'll be Nazis about iPhone apps?

All the conditions seem reasonable: developers can build apps, the platform remains secure, their contract with the network is not undermined, kids browsing the store won't be getting offered porno shite, and why would Apple support apps that hack up their product? Illegal stuff, or anything which subverts the license or contracts you willingly agreed to isn't defensible anyway.

Sellers can price their stuff at whatever they want, as high or as low. The publishing fee would be easily recoupable, even on a $5 product (sell 30 copies and you've made your money back). The exposure alone, just having you and your product listed somewhere with huge exposure. The fact that hundreds of thousands of people will be looking through the App Store ready to find your product. Geez, try and get yourself listed somewhere decent for $99.

This is like iTunes was in its introduction. Everyone went, why would I buy music when I can get it illegitimately for free? Apple will control what I can listen to and they'll limit how I can get it. They'll manipulate it to suit themselves; it's closed and I'll be locked in, and people won't use it. Guess what? Billions of songs sold. #2 music store in the US. Ditto TV shows and movies. I see the same thing with the iPhone apps.

People will be prepared to buy apps now, legitimately, instead of taking the risk with hackery and possibly screwing up their phone, or instead of just staying with a vanilla (certainly not "limited", but "more limited") system.

Besides, this model isn't really any different than other software stores for other devices. It's just better.

You want open, go get an Android device (yes, that was indeed funny). You want good, right here, right now, it's iPhone.

[XAviS]

Try and get the OS on your Palm device upgraded.

Or your Blackberry.

Or your Windows... thing.

Or your Nokia.

... your Samsung, SonyEricsson, Motorola, LG...

[zensunni]

Fofer said:

zensunni wrote: "You want to write a little app for yourself? Sorry, you need to distribute to the world via Apple. "

This isn't true. You can test your own creations on your own iPhone.

Either you're providing misinformation, or Macworld did. Here's the quote from Macworld's coverage that supports my statement:

"Now let's try it live on an iPhone. He's got his phone connected to his Mac, now changes the Xcode setting to build for the physical iPhone. Presses the button, runs the program, connects with the debugger, and... the program runs on the physical iPhone."

So, sure, you can run the app on your own iPhone-- at least, while it's connected to your Mac and the debugger is running. This is not the same as actually installing it on your iPhone and walking away with it working. This is purely a testing exercise that requires the iPhone to be connected to the Mac.

[zensunni]

KPO said:

Zensunni, Apple's approach seems reasonable to me. They are letting the developers keep most of the money and are keeping the start-up costs low by giving away the SDK (provided you have a Mac), and pricing the developer certificate at a more-than-reasonable $99. Apple has also found a nice way of getting all this software to consumers. They need to be concerned about security and legality. The worst thing for iPhone development would be if some rogue app got out there and either swiped a lot of people's personal information or did damage to the phones. iPhone applications will likely be very popular, so they need to take measures to protect end-users.

It isn't reasonable to me. It's very reasonable to people that hope to make money off their development, sure. And it's probably very sweet to the small developers that want to make money. But this isn't good for people that want to develop 1) for themselves, 2) internally for their small company (charity, in my case) (assuming the $200 fee I read about for internal distribution is true), 3) through open source projects or 4) programs that Apple may not like (why shouldn't I be able to put a pr0n app on my iPhone?). I'm sure there are other reasons why this isn't reasonable to me, but, as someone accused me of doing, I've apparently just ranted and not thought on this long and hard enough.

Regarding the $99, I haven't looked into it enough to get legitimate confirmation, but it seems to me this is an annual tithe, er, subscription. Again, not friendly to people that want to develop FREE software.

And, 'security and legality' and 'protect end-users'? Wow. I prefer to have responsibility for my own actions. I don't want big brother looking over my shoulder, shaking his head if I do something he doesn't like. These same excus... er, reasons, would be equally valid if Apple decided to close the entire Mac OS. Why aren't they applying it here? Because it isn't in their financial interests to restrict development on the Mac. But it is on the iPhone.

Don't fool yourself, this is entirely about their bottom line and squeezing every penny they can get and has nothing to do with security, legality or protection end users.

[kill953]

zensunni said:

And, 'security and legality' and 'protect end-users'? Wow. I prefer to have responsibility for my own actions. I don't want big brother looking over my shoulder, shaking his head if I do something he doesn't like. These same excus... er, reasons, would be equally valid if Apple decided to close the entire Mac OS. Why aren't they applying it here? Because it isn't in their financial interests to restrict development on the Mac. But it is on the iPhone.

Don't fool yourself, this is entirely about their bottom line and squeezing every penny they can get and has nothing to do with security, legality or protection end users.

Devil's advocate: using your Mac doesn't have the potential to cost you thousands of pounds in fees when an app sucks up bandwidth while you are roaming abroad. Using your Mac allows you to monitor at all times everything that is going on using Terminal or Activity Monitor and Console so you can see when things aren't doing what they are supposed to be doing. This enables you to identify rogue processes, etc. Could this also be done on the iPhone? Probably, but not at the moment.

Regardless, you raise some good points: it isn't clear if the $99 is a one off or a sub, even after finally being able to look at the site; there isn't any information on whether you can use XCode to deploy your development to your iPhone permanently or not.

[zensunni]

Another interesting point: since many are trumping the $99 as being insignificant to serious developers, I thought I'd look a bit more into it since it seems to me this will be an annual fee. I went through the application process, but didn't actually find details about whether this is or isn't a one-off. Why is that?

Did you notice my use of the word 'application'? You need to apply to Apple to develop. And sign-off on a nice licencing agreement if you want to develop for them. (I'm not talking about the software licencing agreement to use the SDK, but an agreement to develop the software.)

So even if you're willing to pay the $99, they can still turn you down. And just under the glossy 'Apply Now' button is fine print that says, 'The iPhone Developer Program will initially be available to a limited number of developers in the U.S. and will expand to other countries in the coming months.' So it's perfectly clear: only some US compani... er, developers will 'initially' be allowed into the program.

One of the required questions in the application process is your company name. Hmm... I'm not applying as part of a company, I want to be a private developer. The questionaire seems to be making a strong assumption here...

Another required question: Please select the primary category for your application(s). Possible choices include free apps, commercial apps, enterprise (in house) apps. Now who thinks Apple won't consider the answer to this question when allocating the limited number of initial certificates?

Well, my application has been submitted. I've applied with 'Private Individual' as my required company name, developing 'free' apps in the 'education' field (personal self-development, in other words, student). Now I need to wait and see whether I'm 'approved'.

[theverybiggfrogg]

Monopoly? How exactly? If you don't like it by a Blackberry or a Treo or whatever. Apple's iPhone doesn't quite control the market, so how is this "monopolistic?" One of the reasons a Mac is a joy to use is because Apple controls the OS and the box. Is that monopolistic? No, Apple has less than 10% of the market. If it really chafes your buns buy Win-dohs or Linux and a PeeCee box. I'm glad Apple will protect the integrity of the iPhone, so it isn't crashing every three minutes from buggy apps in the middle of calls. When the iPhone approaches 90% or more market share we can start talking monopolistic practices. I don't think that will be happening anytime soon. (Now, if I could just get the money for one--actually I thinking I'm going for the Touch. Happy to say buy to Palm and their laurel resting).
thebiggfrogg