The Struggles of Getting Into the App Store 329
itwbennett writes "You've heard the horror stories about the App Store approval process driving developers away, but what really makes it so bad isn't the 6-8 day waiting period or even rejection. What make it so bad is the lack of access to a human problem-solver at who can loosen the stranglehold of Apple's protocol machine, says Matthew Mombrea, who recounts in excruciating detail his company's experience publishing iOS apps, and, worse, updates to iOS apps."
What we have here... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What we have here... (Score:5, Insightful)
What we have here...Is failure to communicate.
What we have here ... Is a deliberate failure to communicate.
FTFY.
Explaining policies would expose inconsistencies and cost money in additional staff hours.
Apple is not the first company that decided to create a couple of layers between customer support and customers.
Re:What we have here... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is all true (though note that if you're selling physical goods the rules are different, presumably because Apple don't want to own that space, yet).
It's also true that Apple is abusing their stranglehold on the market to try to wring all possible money out of developers, and cripple the software of competitors like Amazon and Google. That's not acceptable for users, developers, or a healthy ecosystem long-term, and we should continue to complain about it until they fix it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not acceptable for users, developers, or a healthy ecosystem long-term, and we should continue to complain about it until they fix it.
In other words, Till hell freezes over that the devils go ice skating...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It blows goats for both legitimate business (sort of—it creates a safer, consistent marketplace, which is a big part of why people are willing to spend money buying software and media on their iDevices, and that doesn't blow goats. Actually, I'd say it's a net benefit for most businesses) and for scammers.
It's good for Apple (obviously) and for most users most of the time.
Re: (Score:2)
How exactly is this good for "most users"? If Apple takes its toll on every sale, then the price of everything rises so that the sellers can still make a benefit. Guess who pays for that?
Re: (Score:2)
The same way credit cards are good for "most users" -- for the convenience and security of using a trusted third party as a transaction moderator you pay a little extra for the transaction. You can argue that Apple shouldn't force people into this setup, or that their fees or too high, but it's ridiculous to argue that they add no value.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't argue that they add no value. The starting point is that the policy "blows goats", but that it's "good for most users". In other words, we're discussing the fact that, as you put it yourself, Apple forces people into their setup. I can perfectly understand that the added value is trust, but also that this trust comes as a price. I have more trouble understanding that forcing people into this setup is "good for most users". Let people decide for themselves what's good for them.
Re: (Score:2)
So how is this not like having to register your credit card with paypal, safebuy, click&buy and lots of other companies who take their cut from transactions, too?
Re: (Score:2)
It is exactly the same. Apple just adds a layer. I'd let the users decide if yet another layer is a thing they want, but Apple won't let them.
Re: (Score:2)
you cannot use your app to direct users to buy things from you without using the in-app purchase system. (Yes, this requirement blows goats. But it is clear and straightforward.)
That may even be a sensible rule for both sides: users are usually already signed up to that shop system and used to it and trust it.
Yes, it sucks (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Yes, it sucks (Score:5, Interesting)
Serious question: How does Win8's fragmentation figure in your decision to potentially develop for their mobile platforms?
From what I can tell, to have full support across all of their portable devices, you'll need to have 3 versions of each app. One for the Windows Phone 8, one for Windows RT 8, and one for x86/x64 Windows 8. I've seen reports that RT tablets won't be able to run phone apps and phones won't be able to run RT apps so that means two ARM builds. And there are also a lot of x86 tablets in the pipeline that will be running the full x86 32 and 64 bit versions of Windows 8 so you'll need to cover them, too.
Seems like that would be a significant barrier to entry unless Microsoft has provided some pretty strong tools to port between platforms.
Re:Yes, it sucks (Score:5, Informative)
It depends on how you're writing your app. If you use the HTML5+JS framework or C#, you can write platform-neutral apps that will run on x86, x64, and ARM Windows 8 machines (including RT). You of course also have the option of specifically targeting one or more platform, which is good for games, but I would expect most apps will be platform neutral
That gets you down to two platforms -- Windows 8 and Windows Phone 8. The Windows Phone 8 SDK has yet to be released except to hand-picked developers under strict NDA, so nobody really knows what's in there yet. It could be binary-compatible with Windows 8. We just don't know.
Re: (Score:3)
Is it a phone? Does it have front facing camera? What video resolutions are supported? Can it even record video? Does it have gyroscope? Accelerometer? GPS? ... the list goes on.
You have to design separately for phone and tablet. (And that's true for any quality app for any other platform too.) Within those two categories supporting the differing resolution on iOS is simple. Just provide extra copies of any bitmaps you use, at double the resolution, with @2x appended on the filename. Everything else just works.
The taller screen of the iPhone4 is pretty easy to deal with too, as most app screens tend to be table views, again there's nothing to be done.
Depending on the app you may h
Re:Yes, it sucks (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, I'm an app developer and quite a few of the apps I've built have had to go through the approval process, and it can be extremely inconsistent and frustrating.
There have been times when Apple have rejected an app with what is for all intents and purposes zero feedback. There have been times when the only person I have communicated with has admitted that they haven't actually used the app. There have been times when they have rejected an app for things that aren't in their rules. They have been times when they have rejected an app for doing things in a certain (sensible, not against the rules) way, and have refused to tell me if the alternative approach we were considering was acceptable to them or not. There have been times when they have rejected an app for something that is present in a great deal of other apps. There have been times when I've been pretty sure that for whatever reason, the reviewer has psychological issues and decided he hates us. And there have been times when they have reviewed and approved an app almost straight away.
Apple's biggest problem is not so much the inconsistency as the terrible communication. When dealing with things at their scale, there's bound to be fuckups. If something gets rejected, I can't simply drop somebody an email saying "Er, I think you've made a mistake here", or "If that's no good, how about this?" I've got to go through an appeals process, and I've got to type up the appeal in a shitty web form coded by somebody who's halfway through reading Web Development for Dummies. And at the end of it, it's quite likely that I'll still get no useful information.
Re: (Score:3)
There's two sides to every story. We don't get to hear Apple's side. And I don't know it, but can only surmise...
Apple are approving more than 500 new apps every day. And many more updates of the existing apps. We're talking about a process that needs production line levels of streamlining.
If there's the facility to start an email discussion when apps are rejected, and nobody wants to wait another 8 days, then app reviewers are going to end up deluged in email to be answered rather than getting on reviewing
Re: (Score:3)
However, on Android I've made far far less revenue on the same apps, only to see my app get 'returned' daily and probably pirated.
So your apps are returned in Android and you blame that on piracy.
But the fact is that the user only has 15 minutes to return the app and if he plans to pirate it, why would he bother on buying it at all?,
Pirates won't ever bother inserting their credit card on Google Play and go straight to the alternative markets and when people are returning your app after just 15 minutes then it's clear that there's something wrong with your app and you shouldn't blame anyone else but you about that
Are your apps those
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As far as costs of doing business goes, $1250 is a god damn bargain.
Really wish people would stop whining about $100 development certificate. It's a negligible cost in the face of the actual App development cost.
Re:Android for the first $1250 (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd bet the nicer docs and generally better API save way more than $100 in developer time anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends if you plan to make that cost back with your app. If you are producing a free app suddenly it doesn't look so good.
There is a good reason why there are more good free apps (free as in really free, not ad-laden crap) and open source software on Android.
ok, ok! (Score:2, Funny)
I'll get off your lawn man!
The Bigger Picture (Score:5, Insightful)
The entire Apple ecosystem is way overpriced, from their consumer products to their stock, as well as all the little "apps" that run on those things.
Get out of the cabin much? I guess not when you are claiming apps that range generally in price for $1 to $5 are "way overpriced".
I would call you gramps but you have that really high UID...
I resent the idea that I'm supposed to waste so much of my time to fiddle with some little pocket device encumbered with a thousand patents to text and email people who don't have the time to communicate in real life
Only fools live to suit the devices they own.
I do none of that, instead my device is there to serve as *I* wish, providing data on demand. How much poorer a life when you do not have that ability on tap constantly.
You need to look at the big picture of what you're developing apps for. Someday people will realize and learn to work with the inherent limitations of interfacing with a little piece-of-junk device that fits in your pocket,
Funny you should mention the big picture; I have already seen it. It's a world where people find the small devices rock-solid compared to the "fiddly" world of PC's they came from. That's what you fail to understand, for non-technical users the desktop is the thing that is limiting and fiddly, the pocket devices the thing they turn to when the just want to do something without fuss and have vastly greater ability to use software to amplify human ability.
It is why I had been looking for a way to switch into mobile development full time since the early smart phone days, and jumped into it full time with the release of the iOS SDK. You don't have to be a genius to see which way the world will go, you just have to stop and consider what most people will probably do.
That is a truth that lives outside of brand; even if iOS faltered Android of WP8 would simply take over the same role. The PC is not a thing most people would want to use, tablets and mobile smartphones are.
Re: (Score:3)
Whatever you're selling, it's way too expensive if you can throw $1250 out the window as the "cost of doing business" as some freelancer developing an "app" that is supposed to run on some fiddly little device. The entire Apple ecosystem is way overpriced, from their consumer products to their stock, as well as all the little "apps" that run on those things. My pocketbook is staying firmly closed when it comes to anything Apple.
Haha, you're on the wrong planet. Businesses regularly through way more than that away as a cost of doing business. Need an artist to make a 3D model? Better pay $2000 for 3DS Max for a year then. Need an artist to draw your UI? Better pay $700 for a photoshop license then. Need a computer to do your development on? Better pay $500 then. Want a desk to work on and a chair to sit on? $200. In the grand scheme of things, $1250 is a pittance to a business, especially when $650 of that is for a comput
Re: (Score:3)
Even if you have a computer, if you want to get started with iOS application development, you have to buy another computer, specifically one manufactured by Apple.
Really? I was perfectly able to continue using my existing Mac.
Re:Android for the first $1250 (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless one is in an early stage startup and needs the Android revenue to afford the $1250 startup cost for iOS development ($650 Mac mini, $500 iPad, $100 certificate).
Dude, if you can't afford to invest $1250 in your startup, you can't afford to invest in your startup. The guy who rides the ice cream bike around the 'hood had a higher startup cost what with the custom cooler-bike, dry ice, ice cream, and business license.
Re: (Score:3)
What happened to the Shareware idea?
Not everybody who sells applications wants to make buckloads of money, there used to be hobbyists like me who invest their spare time to bring affordable, high-quality applications to people. To many of us, the shareware fee was not a means to get rich, but needed as a small incentive (and justification, e.g. to the wife...) to keep maintaining and developing the app. My main shareware app for OS X is better than most of the competition and available for $15 since the pas
Re: (Score:3)
What happened to the Shareware idea?
Why not release a Free app, with an embedded "Donate" button that triggers an in-app-purchase? Voila, Shareware.
Re: (Score:3)
The other platform has roughly the same barriers –you need to spend $500 on a computer, you need to spend $200 on a device to test on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Android for the first $1250 (Score:4, Informative)
Decent chance (being a programmer and all) you'll already own a Mac capable of running Xcode, so the $650 is not needed.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure there's a reason... The reason is that they've developed a *huge* software suite for doing the development on, and would have to spend millions porting it. Add to that that the iOS simulator is litterally directly calling the same OS X APIs for an awful lot of the calls in iOS, and you're talking about porting half of OS X to windows and linux!
Who starts with a Windows box? (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless one is in an early stage startup and needs the Android revenue to afford the $1250 startup cost for iOS development ($650 Mac mini, $500 iPad, $100 certificate).
Most people already have a Mac laptop quite capable of developing iOS apps.
That Android development is not free either by the same logic; you need SOME computer for that and in fact to make Eclipse tolerable it better have a goodly amount of RAM and a fast processor.
And you list $500 for an iPad - why? Brand new iPads start at $400, and you can get refurb or used iPad 2 units for less - never mind the new iPad mini which would serve just as well... or an iPod touch which is even less.
I would argue if you were doing any serious Android development you'd be spending a hell of a lot more for test devices. Otherwise if you aren't serious you can also ship to the Apple app store without testing on a single real device either.
Re:Who starts with a Windows box? (Score:4, Insightful)
Most people
Huh? [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
From the linked article:
Information about operating system share is difficult to obtain, since in most of the categories below there are no reliable primary sources or methodology for its collection.
Re: (Score:2)
You're still wrong -- it's selective apprehension, because Macs are quite visible. Just about on any conference except a Mac developer conference most people will have a run off the mill laptop.
Among the tech savvy, Thinkpads are also quite popular, but the same caveat as above applies, of course.
They don't need you (Score:2, Insightful)
Apple is dealing from a position of strength. They don't need you.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is dealing from a position of strength. They don't need you.
This is a great excuse, until you realise that Apple's strength is derived from the applications others have written for it.
Apple is not like Google where there is a series of services behind the OS (Gmail, YouTube, Maps) that customers rely on (realistically, without Google integrating Maps and Gmail into Android, it would not be doing half as well as it is now).
Re: (Score:3)
This is a great excuse, until you realise that Apple's strength is derived from the applications others have written for it.
Not so, actually. iOS devices were hits before they even allowed native apps to run on them.
This is why iPADS are not business ready (Score:2, Insightful)
The cited IT World article (http://www.itworld.com/it-consumerization/306090/apple-ios-app-review-frustrating-and-bad-your-health) is a lesson in why you don't try to use iPAD as an enterprise platform for home-grown specialized software. You simply don't have enough control over the device or the ability to get the software onto the device. Need to update the app in real time, you are at the mercy of Apple regardless of how nit-picky you think the reviewers are.
Re:This is why iPADS are not business ready (Score:5, Informative)
Um. No. It's simple to set up enterprise distribution with your provisioning profile, which will allow you install any of your signed apps on any of your devices. You can even push the apps OTA.
Have a clue before you make stuff up.
Mod parent up (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Web App? (Score:2, Interesting)
The interesting thing mentioned in the article is that they have both a web app and an iPad app.
How impossible would it be to just have a web app? Then you can update to your hearts delight and don't have to deal with Apple. Users can easily put it on their iPads. There are even some "tricks" you can use to work better on the iPad, I believe (common gestures, etc.).
Re: (Score:3)
the app has to still work, even when there's no network connection. "always online" is not an option yet
Summary: app developer breaks rules, is denied. (Score:5, Insightful)
The article does not describe any actions they take to make the above not true, so it appears that they broke Apple's rules. What can they expect?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, there is a lot of usual keywords in their rant on the web (deliver in a timely manner, etc), but really the reason Apple rejected them is clear as day, and they know it. They state that the in-app store purchase is not appropriate for their need, but it is not clear why not, or why they need users to make any purchase at all.
So in other word their whole rant is irrelevant, except to say that Apple doesn't care about corporate software in their walled garden. If you look at the content of the App store,
Not all developers have the same problems (Score:5, Informative)
My experience with the app store has been totally different.
While I do embedded code for a living, I wanted to learn to write iOS apps. I am by no means a really good Obj-C programmer (but I am improving). My first hobby app suddenly looked like it might be marketable and I prepped it for app store submission.
When I got my one app rejection (on my first submission) I got an electronically generated letter that was sort of vague as to the reason. I responded to it, I got a response by a human in only an hour or two explaining in simpler terms what the issue was and what they expected. I resubmitted that afternoon and in a few days it was up and on sale. There have been no rejections over any of my subsequent updates.
I also had to push out an update about 4-5 days before the iOS 6 release due to a stupid coding error that iOS 6 would no longer let me get away with. It sat in the queue until iOS 6 was released then suddenly the app went from waiting, to in review to ready for sale in a few seconds. It came out when they did a dump of all the other iOS 6 apps. I suppose if an app has a certain number of sales and decent feedback they do not spend much time on it during reviews when crunch time is upon them. This has happened more than once - on the 5.0 update and the 4.0 update too.
Releasing at other times, I usually have 5-6 day waits. My last release (approved today) took a bit more than 8 days.
I have no complaints so far in my 2+ years on the app store.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's simple: the walled garden is where the money is.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Informative)
If only that were true...
Sure, if your app is a hit, there's no better place to be.
Unfortunately, 2/3's of iOS apps have never been downloaded, and less than 1% of iOS apps earn over $1000.
Re: (Score:3)
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57449358-37/ios-still-tops-android-with-app-developers/ [cnet.com]
I don't disagree with you at all; there's tons of apps that are, frankly, garbage. But even if your app is genuinely good, given the amount of "noise" in the store, you must also get lucky to be seen and discover
Re: (Score:2)
Very fishy stats.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, 2/3's of iOS apps have never been downloaded, and less than 1% of iOS apps earn over $1000.
I highly doubt both of those figures.
I know a lot of friends (and myself) who make niche apps, apps they do not advertise and you would never have heard of. All of them have made over $1000 on the apps they make, and there are quite a few other companies making high profile apps that are obviously making a lot of money. There's no way that only ~7500 apps have made over $1k.
In fact this article makes a good case that the number of people making over $1k is more like 20% [daveaddey.com]
Also simply because of review sites and pirates (!), I would actually claim it is nearly impossible that 2/3 of iOS applications have never seen a single download.
It sounds like you are trying to spread FUD - I salute your effort as it makes life easier for us app developers, but I just can't let bad information sit without challenge.
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't offered anything that you can't easily check for yourself. It's not FUD, it's just facts.
You can disagree because of your personal experience, that's fine. Forgive me if I dismiss that in favor of more scientific data.
Re: (Score:2)
Please provide links to the stats, I'm sure we'd all love to see them.
I saw some stats once for iOS sales which were made up based on a lot of dodgy assumptions and one total sales figure, they were far from what you could call 'scientific'. As far as I know Apple have not released stats in this sort of detail, if they have it'd be really interesting to see them here.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you make an assertion, it is for you to provide the source to verify it. You could easily have pasted the link to the story that supports your post, but no, you had to post a lmgtfy link instead.
Well fuck you too.
Re: (Score:2)
In fairness, I made it an "I'm feeling lucky" so it took you right to the article -- I even picked a popular pro-Apple site (Apple Insider). The lmgtfy was because, as I stated earlier, it would have taken you less time to verify the claim than it did to ask for my source!
If it was a even a little obscure or difficult to find, I'd have offered a link. For something like this, it just seemed unnecessary.
I normally wouldn't respond to such a request here, as asking for a source is a way that trolls spread F
Re: (Score:2)
His source doesn't verify anything, beyond the fact that you can't trust so-called "news" websites to report even press releases accurately.
Read the original press release here [adeven.com], and decide for yourself if "given the fact, that they can not be found in any AppStore list and are very likely to be overseen by the search engine, these apps hardly generate any download" = "2/3's of the apps in Apple's App Store have never been downloaded"
I provided external facts, you provided nothing. (Score:3)
I haven't offered anything that you can't easily check for yourself. It's not FUD, it's just facts.
I have checked; your argument is FUD without any facts.
That is why I provided a link to what I feel is a far more reasonable estimate, that is based on real data instead of your guesses and repetition of a "fact" you can't back up with any real data.
So far I am the only one to provide a link to verifiable information; you just claim I should "use Google" when I have and it simply disproves what you have to say
made over $1000 (Score:2)
About a day and a half's income for a decent programmer. I hope it didn't take them any longer than that to write the app (including, of course, share of setup costs and training time.)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
That's simple: the walled garden is where the marketing is.
FTFY,
Most developers dont make back the $99/y fee to list their application let alone the cost of buying a Mac.
The only application developers making money are the developers making applications for those foolish enough to pay them, there is no money in selling direct to consumers.
The only mobile development business model that works is consulting, by selling their services as developers not by selling on the app store so in this regard profitability is platform independent (in fact Android is bett
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most developers dont make back the $99/y fee to list their application let alone the cost of buying a Mac.
I disagree, when I first started iOS dev, I did a couple of trivial little test apps, sold for $0.99, with little more than a screen or two, and only extremely basic functionality. Even these sold hundreds of copies, and easily make my dev fee back year on year.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Funny)
Why is everyone clamoring for an opportunity to support The Beast?
They stabbed it with their steely knives but they Just Can't Kill The Beast, so its still the best game in town.
Re: (Score:3)
They stabbed it with their steely knives but they Just Can't Kill The Beast, so its still the best game in town.
If your app is approved, do they serve you pink champagne on ice?
Re: (Score:3)
Of course. We are all just prisoners here, of our own device.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course. We are all just prisoners here, of our own device.
Hotel California: what you get when you breed Stairway to Heaven and The Rocky Horror Picture Show.
Re: (Score:2)
It is like complaining about government procurement process and bureaucracy. It is true that one can opt to not try and get government contracts. But it is still a valid complaint. Making the process unpredictable and unnecessarily cumbersome does not really help any one.
Because they think it is the path to money (Score:2)
If an app hits big on the app store, you can make a ton of money. iPhone users have the well earned reputation of being a spendy bunch. The reason Rovio are billionaires is because of the app store, because people decided they liked Angry Birds on it.
Combine that with the fact that Apple is generally very hip and trendy now. They are a fashion company, as much as a consumer electronics company. The in thing is to own and be seen with the newest Apple toy.
So tons of people rush in. They believe it is the way
Re: (Score:3)
There is more truth in this than it first appears. Apple wants 30% of your profits with the app - and that may be fine for retail software, but it is hardly acceptable for specialist software. Then again the app store is designed for a general audience, not for specialist software.
I think the logical conclusion is that specialist software should not be distributed over the app store. It should be side loaded.
Re: (Score:2)
"also provides excellent development tools for coding, testing, debugging, and distribution for free along with your developer subscription ($99/yr)."
Wtf is he smoking. They aren't free tools. They are $99/yr tools. He said it right there.
Now that you pay $99/year for it, it's free. Just like my car, computer, and all of my assets except for, no, even utilities are free once I pay for them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Ya my co-worker hit that problem. I don't remember the details as to why, but he was looking at iPhone app development. Someone asked him to do something or the like (he's a Linux sysadmin by trade). However a stumbling block to this is lacking a Mac. They aren't precisely cheap devices to get your hands on. Cheapest you can find is $600 for a Mac Mini, which does not feature $600 worth of hardware.
A former co-worker actually ran in to the same thing, and ended up getting a Mac as part of a contract. A guy
Re: (Score:2)
Wtf is he smoking. They aren't free tools. They are $99/yr tools. He said it right there.
My iOS development for the last year has been exclusively for jailbroken devices. I haven't paid a cent to Apple for dev tools.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you made any money or built up a good user base?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As others have already said, the tools are free, the $99 is needed to run youre apps on a real device rather than the simulator and to submit apps to the app store.
I have to say that all this whining about paying $99 makes me smile a bit. At my company's charge out rate for me, that represents something less than an hour's time. The first C compiler I bought for a PC cost me something like £400 in 1995, which, with inflation is about 10 years of subscription to the Apple Developer programme.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes but did everyone go around calling it free? Probably not.
Its not a fuss about paying for software, its a fuss about people saying its not quite as free as say the competition.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah so here is a free car, but it is $30,000 for the engine.
I can see that marketing campaign really take off.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So, your car, your engine. If you want to provide livery service, then you need a license.
how to upload to own device? (Score:5, Informative)
Last time I looked I was unable to find a way to upload an app that I wrote to my mom's iPhone without a developer license (or jailbreaking the phone, which wasn't an option since it was a work phone).
Re: (Score:3)
Oh? We can distribute iOS apps on something other than the app store? Your "toll road" happens to be the only road in existence.
Eclipse and Linux are damn expensive then (Score:2, Insightful)
But you need to buy a Mac first, not use the computer you already have.
I salute you as being the only person on the planet born with a PC attached to your ass.
The rest of us have to buy SOME computer, no matter what program we wish to run.
Long ago most technical folk switched to buying Mac laptops, so most of them can in fact use the computer they already have...
Re: (Score:2)
Long ago most technical folk switched to buying Mac laptops, so most of them can in fact use the computer they already have...
You keep repeating this like a mantra over and over, but that doesn't make it true. Recent Mac laptops are in fact not very desirable to people who know something about technology and want to do daily work with them for a variety of reasons such as too high price, too slow, not sufficiently upgradeable, problems with battery replacement and no spare battery possible, glossy screen (a big No No), and pretty bad keyboards.
You're confusing Mac developers with "tech folk" in general, but the two groups only ove
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, okay then, the android development tools cost $500 then, as I need to buy a computer first before I can use them.
Re: (Score:2)
This.
I've personally developed and released multiple apps, and each app has had updates shortly after release. One was a rather embarrassing oversight. I didn't blame Apple, I blamed myself. I also used their expedite service to request a quick review for the update and was granted the expedited review. The updated application was approved within 2 days using that process. Apples process is frustrating, and can be extreemly aggravating, but I have to wonder how come they didn't have an application + iPad to
Multi-thousand-dollar app (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A quick google search can confirm the figures I offered.
So why don't you do that and cite your source?
Maybe I've been on Wikipedia too long. There, I'd just revert such a statement that appeared, repeatedly (twice now) in an article with no source.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought about that, and came to the conclusion it sounded like BS.
So I googled around, and the closest I could come up with is a recent press release from a new advertising metrics / mobile analytics startup that is - surprise, surprise! - pushing their own AppStore analysis tool.
And that report doesn't say "never been downloaded" at all - it says (to paraphrase their press release) that only 1/3 of the apps hold a rank in the top 300 of their category (43 categories), and the other 2/3 d
Re: (Score:2)
In light of this comment [slashdot.org], I'll make the following offer:
If narcc will cite his source(s), I'll follow up with the source I used for my comment above within 24 hours.
I suspect they're substantially the same, except that his source is another tech blog / news site that misrepresents the original press release.
Re: (Score:2)
Already done in another comment.
Press crtl+f and type my username in the little search box. You can do that, right?
Why is using a search engine so difficult for some people?
Re: (Score:2)
I just got home from the office. You do know that the world has different time zones, right? Why is the fact that the earth revolves around the sun so difficult for some people?
I found your attempt at snark and - ah, just as I guessed, a blog / "news" site post that misrepresents the content of the Adeven press release. I'll leave it to you to use your superior Google skills to find the original source (hint: try searching for the quotes I used in my original comment).
Everyone else, you can all read it here [adeven.com]
Re: (Score:2)
For its price, 30% is fairly cheap in the end. Amazon takes 50+% off the top for books (standard wholesale rates - why do you think Amazon can always offer books 30% off?), and probably very similar things happen for eBooks. We know it's about 30% for eBooks under $10, and it's more over $10 (to encourage people to price books at under $10), easily 50% or higher.
Microsoft and Sony charge more for their stores and DLC. I can't tell you about Steam, b
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
We did actually consider this, and decided it wasn't the way to go. Our primary concern being that we run the risk of losing our developer license.
It would be fine if we were developing an app for a single client, which they would own the rights to on delivery. But what if we have multiple clients who want the same system? We could have each client add us as an authorized developer so we could sign the code using their certificates, but this is clearly in contradiction to to Apple's app store model, and pro