Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Apple To Developers: Fuck You

1161719212229

Posts

  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    syndalis wrote: »
    Mostly, the stuff that gets blocked are things with blatant nudity, vulgarity (which is subjective and apple would do well to ease up on this category), and illegality (find a drug dealer apps, emulators, etc).

    And this is where I think the Android model shines. Google doe not allow this sort of stuff in the App market either, so if you want it, you have to find the prgram online elsewhere and install it from there. Google gets to keep their store more family friendly, but consumers still ghet to put whatever they want on their phone.

    Evander on
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    Android allows you to install apps that come from outside sources. The last version of WinMo that I had (I want to say it was 6.1, I can't speak for 6.5) and all of the previous PocketPC itterations I've had still allowed this as well. Every PalmOS device I've ever had allowed this.

    The word is that WP7 is going to be set up like iPhone in this regard. If that is the case, then I'll take issue with the WP7 set-up as well.

    sounds like you're in the market for an android device then!

    i probably am too! even though i don't love android, and i don't like having to manually configure my device just to get it to work the way i want it to, and i don't like having to research and sort through thousands of untested apps just to find the one that works somewhat reliably.

    I'm really not looking forward to being an android user. But I'm stuck with sprint so there you go!

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • syndalissyndalis Getting Classy On the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products regular
    edited April 2010
    As it is, 99c blows.

    People have the expectation now that software should be 1-2 bucks on these devices. Even if you are aiming for a smaller demographic and need to charge more to get your return, your app gets flooded with (why isn't this super awesome, 20k line of code app 99c? 3*, 5* if you change the price!!).

    Only a big guy like EA or Take 2 can get away with charging a gaudy 10 bucks for a full-on game like Grand Theft Auto (something that costs 30+ on the other platforms).

    syndalis on
    SW-4158-3990-6116
    Let's play Mario Kart or something...
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    it's not abotu consumers actively counting cents deliberately, it is about the fact that cents DO make a difference. If apps were 33 cents, you'd buy more of them.



    And I want to say that it is tethering and VoIP stuff that Apple has blocked, based on feature, in the past. There may have been other stuff. Wasn't there some kind of controversy at some point involving browsers?

    the controversy is that people would use skype over their unlimited data plan in order to avoid using their AT&T "minutes"

    which is a reasonable concern on the part of AT&T. We'll see how it plays on on the android devices.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    it's not abotu consumers actively counting cents deliberately, it is about the fact that cents DO make a difference. If apps were 33 cents, you'd buy more of them.

    If apps were that cheap that would hurt developer's bottom line and profitability.

    Now that would be a total "fuck you" to developers.

    No, it wouldn't. Not across the board, like you are implying.

    It would actually help some developers. Lower pricetag means more sales, which, if their price is cut down to a third, but their sales go up to 400%, they end up with a larger raw profit. And we're talking about software, which has a negligable variable cost, so that increase is almost pure profit.

    Also, in a free market scenario, prices aren't going to drop on a particular item where the supplier can't afford that drop, so those developers who WOULD be hurt are safe.



    Finally, the vast ammount of free apps out there implies that ANY price is fine. There are alternative sources of revenue, beyond app-price, so claiming that lower app prices would automatically hurt all developers bottom lines misses that point.

    Evander on
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    it's not abotu consumers actively counting cents deliberately, it is about the fact that cents DO make a difference. If apps were 33 cents, you'd buy more of them.



    And I want to say that it is tethering and VoIP stuff that Apple has blocked, based on feature, in the past. There may have been other stuff. Wasn't there some kind of controversy at some point involving browsers?

    the controversy is that people would use skype over their unlimited data plan in order to avoid using their AT&T "minutes"

    which is a reasonable concern on the part of AT&T. We'll see how it plays on on the android devices.

    Other service providers have done fine with less draconian systems on other smartphones. They have managed to find other means of detecting counter-contractual VoIP and tethering. Locking it down on this level cuts out legitimate uses, though, like running VoIP using my home WiFi network.

    Evander on
  • syndalissyndalis Getting Classy On the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products regular
    edited April 2010
    Evander... as someone so economically inclined as yourself, how is Apple supposed to recoup the cost of the credit card transaction on a 30 cent purchase where 21 cents are going to the developer and apple is left with only 9?

    I'm honestly surprised selling stuff for 99c is profitable for them with the developer getting their cut. The margins must be atom-thin.

    syndalis on
    SW-4158-3990-6116
    Let's play Mario Kart or something...
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    syndalis wrote: »
    Evander... as someone so economically inclined as yourself, how is Apple supposed to recoup the cost of the credit card transaction on a 30 cent purchase where 21 cents are going to the developer and apple is left with only 9?

    I'm honestly surprised selling stuff for 99c is profitable for them with the developer getting their cut. The margins must be atom-thin.

    The answer is that it doesn't matter. If transaction costs become prohibitive, then prices will stay where they are.

    My point isn't that prices are absolutely too high as they are, my point is that Apple is preventing certain market forces from having any effect, and as those market forces only stand to benefit consumers (by bringing more inovation, and potentially causing more apps to become free) it is a consumer negative move on apple's part.

    Really, moreso than price drops, that is what stands to happen. More 99c apps would become free, and developers would find more alternative methods of financing apps (such as ads).

    Evander on
  • RandomEngyRandomEngy Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Azio wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Azio wrote: »
    And in any case, they can just refuse to license your game for any reason, or no reason at all, and you have no recourse other than to resubmit.

    Their house, their rules.

    the problem is, if they end up in EVERY house, then there are larger rules

    imagine the massive lawsuits if putting a program on windows was the same as putting one on the iphone?
    Windows is in every house because Microsoft used shady business practices to ensure that all computers from all manufacturers would ship with Windows and only Windows pre-installed. That is why they were sued for anti-trust. If Windows had become the dominant, ubiquitous, inescapable platform that it was in 1998 because everyone specifically, willingly bought Windows because they had a choice in the matter then Microsoft would have probably been able to impose whatever guidelines, and ship however many programs with it, as they cared to.

    iPhone OS is on every iPhone because Apple exclusively designed, manufactured and sold the iPhone. The fact that everyone went out and bought an iPhone doesn't exactly make it a matter of public interest that iPhone development guidelines be fair to other platforms.

    Jesus. Nobody understands what anti-trust/competition policy is supposed to do. It's not about preventing big monopolies or just cracking down on whatever practices you consider "shady". It's about applying the government to foster competition in the free market. If Apple is taking steps to increase the app lockin on the iPhone: making it more difficult to port to other platforms, that's a valid concern for competition policy. And you don't have to make switching over completely impossible to start to see negative effects; simply increasing the cost of switching away can stifle competition. Lifting those barriers means the cost of making a cross-platform app goes down, you see more cross platform apps, and you get a more competitive smartphone market.

    The whole idea that a company can "earn" the right to operate without or suppress competition is just squirrely.
    Azio wrote: »
    if, say, apple sued this guy, or scared him off with legal threats, then I might be convinced to get mad about it.

    <android on iPhone video>

    Apple generally makes its money by writing good software, then tying it to overpriced hardware. That's why they support stuff like Bootcamp and relentlessly try to sue things like OS x86 out of existence. So yeah, I'd doubt they'd go after the people that run Android on their device.

    RandomEngy on
    Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    RandomEngy wrote: »
    The whole idea that a company can "earn" the right to operate without or suppress competition is just squirrely.

    It strikes me as rather Randian, actually. I can hear Andrew Ryan saying "Is a corporation not entitled to the sweat of its own brow?"

    Evander on
  • cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    syndalis wrote: »
    Evander... as someone so economically inclined as yourself, how is Apple supposed to recoup the cost of the credit card transaction on a 30 cent purchase where 21 cents are going to the developer and apple is left with only 9?

    I'm honestly surprised selling stuff for 99c is profitable for them with the developer getting their cut. The margins must be atom-thin.

    The answer is that it doesn't matter. If transaction costs become prohibitive, then prices will stay where they are.

    My point isn't that prices are absolutely too high as they are, my point is that Apple is preventing certain market forces from having any effect, and as those market forces only stand to benefit consumers (by bringing more inovation, and potentially causing more apps to become free) it is a consumer negative move on apple's part.

    Really, moreso than price drops, that is what stands to happen. More 99c apps would become free, and developers would find more alternative methods of financing apps (such as ads).

    Um, the iPhone has allowed ads in free apps since the beginning. So do the other smartphones I believe.

    cloudeagle on
    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    it's not abotu consumers actively counting cents deliberately, it is about the fact that cents DO make a difference. If apps were 33 cents, you'd buy more of them.

    If apps were that cheap that would hurt developer's bottom line and profitability.

    Now that would be a total "fuck you" to developers.

    No, it wouldn't. Not across the board, like you are implying.

    It would actually help some developers. Lower pricetag means more sales, which, if their price is cut down to a third, but their sales go up to 400%, they end up with a larger raw profit. And we're talking about software, which has a negligable variable cost, so that increase is almost pure profit.

    I don't know what you're smoking but I'd be very interested to see what economic function you use that shows that dropping prices by 66% results in a 400% increase in sales.

    Protein Shakes on
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • gearngearn __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    Indie developers tend to be smart at programming but dumb as hell with business.

    If you allowed price points lower than 99 cents many would price themselves out to oblivion.

    In fact, the majority of them make no money at the 99 cent price point already.

    Apple should really raise the minimum price if anything. Make 2.99 the new minimum.

    4.99 is a good minimum for iPad apps.

    If you are making an app that warrants anything cheaper than those prices, just used iAds.

    gearn on
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    gearn wrote: »
    Indie developers tend to be smart at programming but dumb as hell with business.

    If you allowed price points lower than 99 cents many would price themselves out to oblivion.

    In fact, the majority of them make no money at the 99 cent price point already.

    Apple should really raise the minimum price if anything. Make 2.99 the new minimum.

    4.99 is a good minimum for iPad apps.

    If you are making an app that warrants anything cheaper than those prices, just used iAds.

    The price of apps on iPhone will creep up quicker than you think without needing special help.

    tbloxham on
    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    No way in hell. If anything, the average price will go down even more now that iAds give developers a secondary source of revenue.

    Protein Shakes on
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • gearngearn __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    tbloxham wrote: »
    gearn wrote: »
    Indie developers tend to be smart at programming but dumb as hell with business.

    If you allowed price points lower than 99 cents many would price themselves out to oblivion.

    In fact, the majority of them make no money at the 99 cent price point already.

    Apple should really raise the minimum price if anything. Make 2.99 the new minimum.

    4.99 is a good minimum for iPad apps.

    If you are making an app that warrants anything cheaper than those prices, just used iAds.

    The price of apps on iPhone will creep up quicker than you think without needing special help.

    That's not going to happen, developers seem content working for pennies per hour on their app if it means a low price point may eventually give them a shot at making it big in the top 100 list.


    And if iAds brings the average price of apps down it's going to be because developers are making more free apps supported by ads. I doubt anyone is going to actually put ads in paid apps, paid apps get nowhere near the same amount of downloads as a comparable free app. What's probably going to happen is developers will make ad supported and ad free versions of their apps.

    gearn on
  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    when you "tested" these apps, you installed them through the app store?
    No, but all the ones I liked, I ultimately bought them via the store.
    RandomEngy wrote: »
    Apple generally makes its money by writing good software, then tying it to overpriced hardware. That's why they support stuff like Bootcamp and relentlessly try to sue things like OS x86 out of existence. So yeah, I'd doubt they'd go after the people that run Android on their device.
    I'm not too worried about it either. I'm pretty excited too because it means I can make iPhone and Android apps and test them on a single device.

    Azio on
  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    RandomEngy wrote: »
    Jesus. Nobody understands what anti-trust/competition policy is supposed to do. It's not about preventing big monopolies or just cracking down on whatever practices you consider "shady". It's about applying the government to foster competition in the free market. If Apple is taking steps to increase the app lockin on the iPhone: making it more difficult to port to other platforms, that's a valid concern for competition policy. And you don't have to make switching over completely impossible to start to see negative effects; simply increasing the cost of switching away can stifle competition. Lifting those barriers means the cost of making a cross-platform app goes down, you see more cross platform apps, and you get a more competitive smartphone market.

    The whole idea that a company can "earn" the right to operate without or suppress competition is just squirrely.
    The iPhone hardware, the iPhone OS, the app store, and the apps on the app store are all a single product as far as Apple is concerned. The app store is not a free market. It is a private retail outlet that Apple exclusively operates. The "free market" is different platforms competing with one another, and in the iPhone's case the hardware, software and app store collectively comprise one of those platforms. Note that the "free" market also includes people using third-party tools to allow them to run whatever code they like on their iPhones. I just don't see how it is anticompetitive for apple to change the rules of their own store, their own platform. Especially given that there are legitimate technical reasons for hindering cross-platform app development.

    Besides, the smartphone market is already quite competitive, and in no way comparable to the market for desktop operating systems circa 1998.

    Azio on
  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Also, frankly, if every smartphone has the same shitty apps then competition between smartphones is now effectively reduced to "who has the fastest hardware" and Apple bought out ARM so we know what that means

    Azio on
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Azio wrote: »
    Also, frankly, if every smartphone has the same shitty apps then competition between smartphones is now effectively reduced to "who has the fastest hardware" and Apple bought out ARM so we know what that means

    Really? Because not a single person I know actually compares phones this way. I have never heard a single person say "hmm, which phone is fastest?" or "which phone has the fastest hardware?" It's usually "which/how many apps are available?" and "how many can I install?" and "how much memory?" and "what's the quality of the camera?" and "how good is the headset?" and "what kind of accessories does it support?" and "what's the resolution of the screen?" and "how solid is the OS?" and "how's the keyboard? physical/virtual? how good are the options?"

    But I've never, ever heard "which smartphone has the fastest hardware?" and I'm pretty sure it's those other questions up yonder - the ones that matter most to the consumer - that competition hinges on.

    I honestly don't know anything about the hardware specs of my BlackBerry Storm. I know the phone is largely a piece of shit, but I don't know or care what the specs of the hardware are.

    Drez on
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    Really? Because not a single person I know actually compares phones this way. I have never heard a single person say "hmm, which phone is fastest?" It's usually "which apps are available?" and "how many can I install?" and "how much memory?" and "what's the quality of the camera?" and "how good is the headset?" and "what kind of accessories does it support?" and "what's the resolution of the screen?" and "how solid is the OS?" and "how's the keyboard? physical/virtual? how good are the options?"

    It's probably a combination of all those, but some of them may be complete deal-breakers. I ditched my old phone because it's operating system was slow as hell, and it interfered with a lot of things I was doing on it (it was a Palm Pre btw). I liked the other aspects but the slowness was just too much to deal with.

    Protein Shakes on
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • taerictaeric Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2010
    Drez wrote: »
    Azio wrote: »
    Also, frankly, if every smartphone has the same shitty apps then competition between smartphones is now effectively reduced to "who has the fastest hardware" and Apple bought out ARM so we know what that means

    Really? Because not a single person I know actually compares phones this way. I have never heard a single person say "hmm, which phone is fastest?" or "which phone has the fastest hardware?" It's usually "which/how many apps are available?" and "how many can I install?" and "how much memory?" and "what's the quality of the camera?" and "how good is the headset?" and "what kind of accessories does it support?" and "what's the resolution of the screen?" and "how solid is the OS?" and "how's the keyboard? physical/virtual? how good are the options?"

    But I've never, ever heard "which smartphone has the fastest hardware?" and I'm pretty sure it's those other questions up yonder - the ones that matter most to the consumer - that competition hinges on.

    I honestly don't know anything about the hardware specs of my BlackBerry Storm. I know the phone is largely a piece of shit, but I don't know or care what the specs of the hardware are.



    Is it bad that the cynic in me thinks most people really ask "which phone was featured in that ad?" Or, possibly, "which phone does such and such celebrity use?"

    taeric on
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    taeric wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Azio wrote: »
    Also, frankly, if every smartphone has the same shitty apps then competition between smartphones is now effectively reduced to "who has the fastest hardware" and Apple bought out ARM so we know what that means

    Really? Because not a single person I know actually compares phones this way. I have never heard a single person say "hmm, which phone is fastest?" or "which phone has the fastest hardware?" It's usually "which/how many apps are available?" and "how many can I install?" and "how much memory?" and "what's the quality of the camera?" and "how good is the headset?" and "what kind of accessories does it support?" and "what's the resolution of the screen?" and "how solid is the OS?" and "how's the keyboard? physical/virtual? how good are the options?"

    But I've never, ever heard "which smartphone has the fastest hardware?" and I'm pretty sure it's those other questions up yonder - the ones that matter most to the consumer - that competition hinges on.

    I honestly don't know anything about the hardware specs of my BlackBerry Storm. I know the phone is largely a piece of shit, but I don't know or care what the specs of the hardware are.



    Is it bad that the cynic in me thinks most people really ask "which phone was featured in that ad?" Or, possibly, "which phone does such and such celebrity use?"

    Product placement for phones is still big business, but the market share of Apple is compelling. Ironically enough I bought my iPhone because I wanted to move into having the internet everywhere (which meant I wanted a faster device). I was, of course, progressively more and more disappointed (no internet tethering out of the box, WTF? Jailbreak fixed that of course - as well as the "pay for a ringtone from a song you already own on CD" bullshit).

    The iPhone is a wonderful combination of hardware, but honestly Apple's ideas of software implementation are disappointing - the lack of a wireless sync option with iTunes - still - is one of the most ridiculous feature omissions possible, for a device which is fundamentally tethered to a PC to operate yet has 3G, wi-fi and bluetooth.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2010
    I believe OS 4.0 will have wireless sync with iTunes, although I can't remember where I read that.

    Protein Shakes on
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • syndalissyndalis Getting Classy On the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products regular
    edited April 2010
    I believe OS 4.0 will have wireless sync with iTunes, although I can't remember where I read that.

    It's not there currently. Posting this from 4.0 right now.

    syndalis on
    SW-4158-3990-6116
    Let's play Mario Kart or something...
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    syndalis wrote: »
    Evander... as someone so economically inclined as yourself, how is Apple supposed to recoup the cost of the credit card transaction on a 30 cent purchase where 21 cents are going to the developer and apple is left with only 9?

    I'm honestly surprised selling stuff for 99c is profitable for them with the developer getting their cut. The margins must be atom-thin.

    The answer is that it doesn't matter. If transaction costs become prohibitive, then prices will stay where they are.

    My point isn't that prices are absolutely too high as they are, my point is that Apple is preventing certain market forces from having any effect, and as those market forces only stand to benefit consumers (by bringing more inovation, and potentially causing more apps to become free) it is a consumer negative move on apple's part.

    Really, moreso than price drops, that is what stands to happen. More 99c apps would become free, and developers would find more alternative methods of financing apps (such as ads).

    Um, the iPhone has allowed ads in free apps since the beginning. So do the other smartphones I believe.

    Ah, good of you to bring ads up, because if Apple has their druthers, iAd will be the only worthwile ad serving platform allowed on the iPhone and iPad. That was even more blatant than the lockdown on development languages.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    gearn wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    gearn wrote: »
    Indie developers tend to be smart at programming but dumb as hell with business.

    If you allowed price points lower than 99 cents many would price themselves out to oblivion.

    In fact, the majority of them make no money at the 99 cent price point already.

    Apple should really raise the minimum price if anything. Make 2.99 the new minimum.

    4.99 is a good minimum for iPad apps.

    If you are making an app that warrants anything cheaper than those prices, just used iAds.

    The price of apps on iPhone will creep up quicker than you think without needing special help.

    That's not going to happen, developers seem content working for pennies per hour on their app if it means a low price point may eventually give them a shot at making it big in the top 100 list.


    And if iAds brings the average price of apps down it's going to be because developers are making more free apps supported by ads. I doubt anyone is going to actually put ads in paid apps, paid apps get nowhere near the same amount of downloads as a comparable free app. What's probably going to happen is developers will make ad supported and ad free versions of their apps.

    Let's not forget that Apple went out of their way to make sure that iAd will be the only ad platform on the iPhone and iPad that can actually, you know, work. I have a feeling that bit of legalese won't survive for very long.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    it's not abotu consumers actively counting cents deliberately, it is about the fact that cents DO make a difference. If apps were 33 cents, you'd buy more of them.

    If apps were that cheap that would hurt developer's bottom line and profitability.

    Now that would be a total "fuck you" to developers.

    No, it wouldn't. Not across the board, like you are implying.

    It would actually help some developers. Lower pricetag means more sales, which, if their price is cut down to a third, but their sales go up to 400%, they end up with a larger raw profit. And we're talking about software, which has a negligable variable cost, so that increase is almost pure profit.

    I don't know what you're smoking but I'd be very interested to see what economic function you use that shows that dropping prices by 66% results in a 400% increase in sales.

    I pulled random numbers to make a point. However, it is not at all difficult for those conditions to exist, it would all depend on the slope of the demand curve.

    I don't expect those to be anything close to the actual figures, but they illustrate the point.

    there is not enough data present to do any ACTUAL modeling.

    edit: you will note the key word "if" in my posts where I used figures. Again, this concept is called a hypothetical.

    Evander on
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Azio wrote: »
    Also, frankly, if every smartphone has the same shitty apps then competition between smartphones is now effectively reduced to "who has the fastest hardware" and Apple bought out ARM so we know what that means

    So, wait, are you arguing that closer competition is bad?

    If the issue comes down to hardware, then that will encourage companies to make BETTER phones.

    Why WOULDN'T you want that?

    Evander on
  • SpoitSpoit *twitch twitch* Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Even though I don't really like the way that it's driven hardware (Especially this whole capacitive screen fetish), you'd have to be insane not to realize how much the iphone has driven for there to actually be some sort of hardware progression in smartphones. Especially in America. Before it came out, you were lucky to get more than a few hundred megs of RAM, and let's not even talk about how it's only like this year that we're finally starting to see WVGA screens, despite that one toshiba PDA having one a couple years before the iphone came out.

    Spoit on
    steam_sig.png
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Spoit wrote: »
    Even though I don't really like the way that it's driven hardware (Especially this whole capacitive screen fetish), you'd have to be insane not to realize how much the iphone has driven for there to actually be some sort of hardware progression in smartphones. Especially in America. Before it came out, you were lucky to get more than a few hundred megs of RAM, and let's not even talk about how it's only like this year that we're finally starting to see WVGA screens, despite that one toshiba PDA having one a couple years before the iphone came out.

    A large part of the problem is the system in the US for purchasing a cell phone.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Spoit wrote: »
    Even though I don't really like the way that it's driven hardware (Especially this whole capacitive screen fetish), you'd have to be insane not to realize how much the iphone has driven for there to actually be some sort of hardware progression in smartphones. Especially in America. Before it came out, you were lucky to get more than a few hundred megs of RAM, and let's not even talk about how it's only like this year that we're finally starting to see WVGA screens, despite that one toshiba PDA having one a couple years before the iphone came out.

    A large part of the problem is the system in the US for purchasing a cell phone.

    indeed

    As some one who had smartphones prior to the iPhone, by the way, I don't see the iPhone as pushing the progression as much as people think it has. Foreign cell tech has been moving along just fine, there just wasn't as much demand to bring those products to the US.



    However, to whatever extent you can say the iPhone has helped the market innovate, that is only ALL THE MORE reason why better competition between phone models should be encouraged.

    Evander on
  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Drez wrote: »
    Azio wrote: »
    Also, frankly, if every smartphone has the same shitty apps then competition between smartphones is now effectively reduced to "who has the fastest hardware" and Apple bought out ARM so we know what that means

    Really? Because not a single person I know actually compares phones this way. I have never heard a single person say "hmm, which phone is fastest?" or "which phone has the fastest hardware?" It's usually "which/how many apps are available?" and "how many can I install?" and "how much memory?" and "what's the quality of the camera?" and "how good is the headset?" and "what kind of accessories does it support?" and "what's the resolution of the screen?" and "how solid is the OS?" and "how's the keyboard? physical/virtual? how good are the options?"

    But I've never, ever heard "which smartphone has the fastest hardware?" and I'm pretty sure it's those other questions up yonder - the ones that matter most to the consumer - that competition hinges on.
    Yeah, that is the current order of things, I'm saying if someone writes a magical tool or language that lets you build an app for 3 or 4 smartphone platforms at once then eventually 95% of all apps will be built with that tool and all distinctions will break down and it'll come down to "which one is fastest"

    Azio on
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Azio wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Azio wrote: »
    Also, frankly, if every smartphone has the same shitty apps then competition between smartphones is now effectively reduced to "who has the fastest hardware" and Apple bought out ARM so we know what that means

    Really? Because not a single person I know actually compares phones this way. I have never heard a single person say "hmm, which phone is fastest?" or "which phone has the fastest hardware?" It's usually "which/how many apps are available?" and "how many can I install?" and "how much memory?" and "what's the quality of the camera?" and "how good is the headset?" and "what kind of accessories does it support?" and "what's the resolution of the screen?" and "how solid is the OS?" and "how's the keyboard? physical/virtual? how good are the options?"

    But I've never, ever heard "which smartphone has the fastest hardware?" and I'm pretty sure it's those other questions up yonder - the ones that matter most to the consumer - that competition hinges on.
    Yeah, that is the current order of things, I'm saying if someone writes a magical tool or language that lets you build an app for 3 or 4 smartphone platforms at once then eventually 95% of all apps will be built with that tool and all distinctions will break down and it'll come down to "which one is fastest"

    and why is that bad?

    Evander on
  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I don't think it would be bad, strictly speaking, although the total quantity of shovelware would skyrocket, and apps would cease to be tailor-made for whatever platform which invariably leads to bad or inconsistent UIs, poor performance, platform-specific bugs that are costly to fix, and generally poorer quality apps for everyone

    I think it's ludicrous to say apple haven't the right to try and prevent it from happening, it is their platform, and it's pretty obvious why it's bad for apple if suddenly the iPhone ceases to be a platform and is now just a device, a hunk of metal and plastic just like every other smartphone

    Azio on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Azio wrote: »
    I think it's ludicrous to say apple haven't the right to try and prevent it from happening to their platform

    Why am I suddenly reminded of the sorts of excuses used to defend Apple trying to tear up the First Amendment?

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Azio wrote: »
    I don't think it would be bad, strictly speaking, although the total quantity of shovelware would skyrocket, and apps would cease to be tailor-made for whatever platform which invariably leads to bad or inconsistent UIs, poor performance, platform-specific bugs that are costly to fix, etc

    I think it's ludicrous to say apple haven't the right to try and prevent it from happening, it is their platform, and it's pretty obvious why it's bad for apple if suddenly the iPhone ceases to be a platform and is now just a device, a hunk of metal and plastic just like every other smartphone

    Going back to the video game console comparison, the fact that most video games are developed to be released on both Xbox and playstation certainly does not seem to have hurt the market.

    The free market model says that specialized apps optimized for particular platforms would come out, anyway. If cross-platform apps feel unoptimized, and consumers want optimized apps, then they will follow. If there is a market for it, it will exist. That is the American business model.

    Also, I am worried by your notion that Apple have a "right" to lock down what consumers are allowed to have. I know it's beating a dead horse, but I think it really is apt here; If Microsoft doesn't have the "right" to decide what web browser you can use with your OS (and in Europe, the issue wasn't even in lockig things down, it was in bundling) then why do you think Apple should have a "right" to decide ALL of your programs?

    Evander on
  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Why am I suddenly reminded of the sorts of excuses used to defend Apple trying to tear up the First Amendment?
    man what
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Azio on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Azio wrote: »
    Why am I suddenly reminded of the sorts of excuses used to defend Apple trying to tear up the First Amendment?
    man what
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Oh, I see you forgot when Apple decided to take a big dump over that whole quaint "freedom of the press" thing.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    see, I never said "Apple sucks". you're reading in something that isn't there. I think apple overcharges, and I think that they keep draconian controls of their products, but I also think that they make quality stuff, just too locked down for my personal taste.

    My point has to do with the locked down centralized marketplace for iPhones, where any application installed on an iPhone must be expressly approved by Apple, and then Apple is the ONLY entity allowed to sell those applications, and only through one central store. My problem with it is that it eliminates a lot of competition, on a software level, which i see as detrimental to that particular market.

    This really requires for you to view a cellphone as a general "platform" like a PC. If you're relating it to any other consumer electronics device, your position is just nonsense. My Xbox does not allow for "open sourcing," nor does my PSP, nor does my DS, nor my DS, nor my shitty Palm cell phone, nor the fancy remote I bought for my home theater, my TV, my audio receiver, my Wii, my mixer (buying Kitchen-Aid certified attachments is expensive!), my microwave, etc etc etc

    And, frankly, if you have a broad expectation for your cellphone to be a tiny general-use PC, then the iPhone isn't for you in the first place.

    I'd really like someone to explain what's wrong with this.

    Cause this makes far more sense then foaming at the mouth about a phone most of you don't even want to use.

    Quid on
Sign In or Register to comment.