[zensunni]

kill953 said:

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.

True, but neither are inherently insurmountable and could have been avoided with foresight. The phone knows when it's roaming. Apple could have programmed it to provide a warning when roaming and the phone tries using the data connection.

In any event, the first is really a moot point when you consider that Apple encourages web apps, which require the data connection. One of the many reasons for wanting local apps is to avoid having to use the data connection to run the programs. Apple has encouraged large bills (purposely? hmm) caused by international roaming by not allowing users to install local apps from the very beginning. So high roaming charges, IMO, isn't really a valid rationale for being so tight on local apps when the web apps are more likely to cause the charges.

Regarding monitoring, they could have easily included these types of apps. Why didn't they? Mac OS X: the whole point of going UNIX was so that people would have more choice, more power. CLI or GUI to do a task? Providing the ability to monitor things and use a CLI doesn't mean users have to do so; I'm sure the majority of Mac OS users rarely, if ever, do so. But oh how different an OS would it be if we didn't have the ability to do it?

[pairof9s]

zensunni

Geez, there's one of these in every bunch.

But let him make his points; that's purpose for these forums. At the end of the day, I'd imagine 98% of iPhone developers will be completely oblivious to these criticisms and successfully develop & deploy apps for the iPhone.

At least that's what I'm hoping for after June!

/

[Apple_Dog]

People in which countries will be able to use the App Store for their iPod touches?
In many areas we pay much more for these devices, just to be able to NOT buy new software and upgrade... or PAY to upgrade to have the priviledge to BUY new software.
This is much different than paying for an upgrade to OS X or iWork. This is paying them so you can buy stuff for a device you already bought! And you cannot get the new OS upgrade unless you get it from iTunes, which you cannot buy if you live outside of certain countries.
Frankly, the new model would be fair if it applied to everyone, but it doesn't. Something is rotten in the city of Cupertino.

[123oleary]

i know nothing about code or progamming so excuse a silly question but how much memory will applications take up. the aps will probably start to appear in june so there will be a surge of buying and installing of apps , then come some time say pre xmas onwards 3g / enhanced memory iphone is released - will you neeed to purchase your apps all over again

[kill953]

The amount of disk space they use won't be as important as the amount of RAM they use. The RAM and CPU are the more significant limitations of the iPhone, not the amount of disk space. However, it would behove developers to be frugal with disk space as well.

[kill953]

zensunni, you ought to post some feedback to Apple about your situation - charity, etc. - because, if they haven't already thought about it then they need to have someone tell them about it. It would do Apple good to have someone remind them that there are organisations that have more corporate needs than the average user that might not have corporate finances to execute them under the current programme. You never know they might open up the certification process and SDK to these organisations for free if the feedback (and PR) was there.

It wouldn't do Apple any good PR wise if charities and other NGOs couldn't develop for their staff just because there wasn't a programme providing them with discounts and access to the SDK without having to spring for the $299 option.

With respect to the US based company limitation. I suspect that the wording of that warning is not correct. I imagine that what Apple means is that the App Store is due to open in the US first with priority and advertising given to the distribution of software from established companies, rather than it being a free-for-all for all developers. I don't think that they mean they won't be giving development rights to new developers or start-ups.

Whether or not that is a good thing to do is another matter altogether of course ;-)

[ballinuup6789]

apple is a pain. They give the iphone free updates, but us ipod touch owners get robbed. Always charging for things coming free for iphone. Does apple want ipod touch owners to get a iphone or something?

[Gatesbasher]

ballinuup6789 said:

apple is a pain. They give the iphone free updates, but us ipod touch owners get robbed. Always charging for things coming free for iphone. Does apple want ipod touch owners to get a iphone or something?

No matter how many times this is repeated, it doesn't seem to register. The iPhone is sold under a subscription model. Apple can write off the upgrade's value over a two-year period, assuming service charges will pay it off. When they add value to the iPod Touch with a big update like this, since they added the income from its sale all at once, they have to charge what seems like a reasonable sum for it, or their shareholders, including a lot of pension funds and unions, can sue them for giving it away free. It's Federal Law, and you can thank the good folks at Enron for it.

[Podesta]

I think Apple was wise to intentionally set some requirements for participation in the iPhone SDK program. The goal of some folks is to never pay for anything or adhere to any rules. It is necessary to preclude such self-centered behavior from the beginning. If left to their own, that sort would continue to hack the iPhone using Apple's own tools, profiting from Apple but never paying it a cent.


I do not believe Zensummi is concerned about eleemosynary use of the iPhone. I will wager that his 'charity' is himself.


I'll take a stab at trying to explain why Apple charges for iPod touch updates. The touch is an item only purchase. The iPhone is an item plus services purchase - an ongoing revenue stream. Enhancements to the device only purchase are not free because all one purchased was the device. Any enhancements are additional purchases. (Example: Buying Barbie and then periodically buying accessories for her.)

[ballinuup6789]

Oh alright. Now I get wat ur saying. I n ever understood why they kept charging iPod touch owners and all the iPhone updates are free. So wat ur saying is that iPhone users basically pay for it through their bill? If so, that would explain a lot.

[Gatesbasher]

That's right. Of course, if Enron, to mention only the biggest such corporate scandal, hadn't defrauded their stockholders, including all those orphans and pension funds, it would never have been necessary to pass these laws. But now Apple has to make it look at least plausible to some unfriendly auditor that they're charging what the update is worth. I'm willing to bet it would be much less, at least for a point version, if it weren't for some of these corporate criminals who have stolen billions (maybe trillions) of dollars from the general public lately.

[palane]

Zensunni - I think your stance originates from a misreading of the device. The iPhone is not a computer, rather, not just a computer. Mobile service providers are not going to permit wild devices on their networks. The last thing they want is to open the Pandora's box of spam/spyware/viruses/botnets that clogs internet traffic. That would be disastrous from a network's perspective.
As one other poster noted, how open is the development process for other smart phones? Apple's stance is reasonable.
As SJobs would say, one more thing...
Your 1st post: "Until Apple opens these devices so that I can develop what I want to develop and install what I want to install, I'll continue my boycott of them."
A Later post: "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'."
Question: If you are boycotting these devices, why did you apply to the program? With the vague responses you put into your "application", I wouldn't be surprised to see it bounced.

[youngbrammer]

Of course the store is a way to earn money. My Dad, who worked for SBC, now AT&T, majority shareholder of AT&T, formally cingular, (AT&T for 1 day because they goverment split them up) for many years, says in the early 90's, the average cell bill was $75/month. Him and co-workers when on a thing like from the IBM commercials, "ideating". The idea was to make the average bill $125/month. One recomened addittion was the ability to track children. Another was a fashion statement. The folks who worked with the company for many years laughed at the thought. Now, cell phones have GPS and the Razr was a massive way of saying "I'm cool", so is the iPhone. My neighbor does that with her iPhone.

Basiclly what I mean is some of you are right, trying to find ways to earn extra money, but don't accept that is what they get paid for.

[youngbrammer]

theverybiggfrogg said:

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

No, look at Microsoft. Near the end of the Clinton era, they were being investigated for only allowing companies to use Windows on there computers or they would not get the rights to run Windows. They also have a monopoly on spyware, adware, etc.