ALSO REMEMBER that if you want to publish an iphone app on your own and not pay $99, nobody is stopping anyone from doing that. People have been doing that for months.

nutbastard

@drewbyh:

"Free and quality go together as well as my dick and your butt."

Whoa, hold on. Doesn't that really depend on who "you" is? ;-)

Also, there are quality free wares. QuickSilver for the Mac comes to mind. Speaking of which, I wonder if dimwits like legacye know how much it costs someone like the QS developer to host, advertise, and distribute his "free" software? ;-p

[www.blacktree.com]

Dearhaw

@drewbyh:
I take it you're not familiar with the Ubuntu Debian Repositories? There's a wealth of very excellent free software out there. Hell I'd bet at least 25% of Giz readers use firefox, the friggin gold standard of web browsers, which is, you guessed it, Free.

nutbastard

@legacye:

"Everything should be free, free, FREE!! What's wrong with you people!!"

Fuckin' commie ;-p

Dearhaw

@legacye:
what would it cost you to self publish? As in, secure a decent domain name, advertise, paypal fees, CC transaction fees, server purchase/upkeep etc. Not to mention the man-hours that go into something like that. If you're just one guy, it could be a real pain in the ass. Add to that the filtering apple will do (checking for malicious code, bug testing, etc.) for your potential customers, and you've got a bunch of happy campers buying trusted software from a trusted source, which tends to put them at ease.

Would you just give your CC info to some weird dot com that sprang up 3 weeks ago? Even if you did, would you be as comfortable doing that as you would with a company with the kind of culpability those no name sites are able to sidestep?

nutbastard

The $99 plan is great. It'll keep thousands of various photo editors, ping utilities and just plain stupid shit to a minimum. That's a good thing. Free and quality go together as well as my dick and your butt. They don't.

drewbyh

It's simple.

If there's an App that a developer want to distribute for free, but is too broke to cough up the $99, s/he just needs to ask donations of $5 on his website. If 20 people think the App is worth it, they'll donate, and s/he will have the money to pay for the one time fee.

If the developer can't find 20 people interested in the software enough to cough up $5, then frankly, I don't need the piece of shit software, and I certainly don't want POS like that cluttering up the iTunes store. End of story.

Dearhaw

@legacye:
people pay a hell of a lot more than that to google just to have their product / app show up at the top of search results - which doesn't even guarantee a page view let alone a purchase - while the people who will search apples software library have already expressed an intent to purchase SOMETHING. Apple consolidating this is a very cool thing, despite the restrictive drawbacks.

How much would a small company be willing to pay in order to advertise a purchasable product on every iPhone out there? a hell of a lot more than $99, that's for sure.

The other thing we may see is the snowball effect - if people can (and do) search for apps by popularity, small guys expecting to make a couple grand could find themselves filthy rich. Or not; who knows? Regardless, the potential is there.

nutbastard

Yeah i think the apple deal is pretty sweet - if you charged one dollar for your app, you'd break even after 141 downloads. That's not a lot of downloads, and if history is any indication, people really aren't that scrupulous regarding what they'll pay for something that runs on a phone. If a given person would pay $1 for a god damn ringtone, a snippet of low-fidelity pop-music vomit, why wouldn't they pay $1 for a reasonably useful app / entertaining game? Seeing how theres millions of iPhone owners out there, most of whom are well off enough and who enjoy new tech/toys, I think it's completely feasible for a one man project to generate thousands of dollars for the dev.

nutbastard

Can't download the SDK... Apple's site is overwhelmed with traffic... "http://developer.apple.com/iphone/program/"

Nice! :)

zombo

I find it funny how despite the $99 price to publish your own applications (something absolutely ridiculous) - there are STILL some iFans supporting this and even touting it as a GOOD THING.

What's wrong with you people?

legacye

excuse me. I'm going to deleware with a student discount buying a refurbished ipod touch

takemetoyourtoaster

@awesomerobot:

It doesn't matter. even if Apple pays ppl to list their appz on iTune ppl will still complaint about it. "Oh the take 30% for just hosting it! rippoff!" or things like that.

The fact is, $99 is whole lot cheaper than buying Visual Studio and finding your way to advertise your apps to millions.

cobbe1

It's alive!

[developer.apple.com]

zombo

I wonder how they will handle subscription style applications and games. Imagine a simple MMO style game for the iphone. You make the client, pay the $99 to get it listed, and then give it away for free. You then charge the end user $5 a month to play, and Apple does not get a cut of that, while using their store to manage the client updates/

quu

No update to XCode yet, but there is a GarageBand update, so I'm just going to rock out until the SDK is published!

zombo

@izim1:
Yes, I donate, believe it or not.
$5 here and there.... for small Windows single purpose applications or screen savers I've used over the years...

For developers, 1000's of downloads and a few bucks form "some" people always help a kid in college to continue learning or a guy in a basement "for the love of the art" to get new hardware for a good idea.

Now for a small developer, hoping to get recognition for free software that MAY or may not lead to future employment or patent, etc..... asking him to bend over and get rimmed for $99 just to "promote" his skill is well... so much like Apple.

Seems like Apple these days would charge you for the air you breathe if they had a patent.

aec007

After Apple tossed my salad and gave me $100 to keep quiet about it, I went out and bought .Mac.

That'll show'em.

Based on what I've seen in the whole jailbreak scene, yes you can update but you have to wait for some one to come up with a way to activate the phone for use with no contract.

thechansen

@The Full English Please!!:
they have to fund those $100 whiner gift cards somehow.

but yeah, it's bizarre, early iPhone owners bitched and pissed and moaned about frugal people waiting and getting a better price, and apple tossed their salad and gave em $100 gift cards.

iPod Touch owners have yet to see any significant price drop since release and are required to pay extra for what iPhone users get for free (or rather is included in the price)

What i wanna know is, will itunes update the firmware on an iphone off-contract for free?

nutbastard

I don't know why people are complaining - you're getting instant access to millions of people for 99$ - if 15 people buy your app for 10$ - you just made a profit.

That's the cheapest commercial app dev costs I've ever heard of.

awesomerobot

I don't think very many of you are understanding this properly. I believe it's a 1-time fee of $99, then any time after that, you do NOT pay. You Simply pay a 1-time fee of $99, which gives you a pass to upload any apps you wish. They take 30% of profits that you make. However, free applications will not be CHARGED, but you still have to pay the 1-time fee of $99 to get your app on iTunes.

ovil200

So this is like MS charging 99$ for softwares to run on windows? :)

SowndOfDeth

No one asked what will be the options for unlocked iPhones, or did I miss that? Will we have to wait and see how hackable FW 2.0.0 is, or will Apple offer amnesty updates?

Jason

@zombo:

I'm pretty sure the $99 is a one time fee to register as a developer with the app store. I don't think you have to pay every time. Though I could be wrong.

krose

I think free app developers still have to pay the $99 fee, but they won't be charged for hosting etc.

trendspotter

I wonder how long it will be before someone puts up an app with a list price of $1,000,000.

ceilingFANBOY: now with 100% more fanboy

Can someone explain this $100M fund to me? As a developer, how do I benefit?

zombo

@aec007: HAHA and do YOU actually donate to the developers? you dont think it costs them anything to host freeware? why do you think they ask for donations? you think many people actually donate? they lose money in hopes of bigger and better opportunities. thats how the real world works....

talk about being a fan.......

izim1

wonder if the iFund will subsidize the $99 for developers..if so, it will truly kiss ass!

sho38

So it's $99 per app that you release through iTunes Apps, correct? Unless it's free, then it's, well, Free?

zombo

@theCornerinvasion:
That just about sound like all Apple products in general.
That's what turned me away from Apple in the 80's.

Monoappelly.

(Hey, I think Im just invented the best Apple description)

aec007

@cryptoknight: And free is gooden

iPeg

@discounteggroll:
There's this little tool...
"The WWW search", where you can search for FREEWARE ! and you will find 1000's of sites with links to free software.
Developers are charged ZERO and they hope you donate through PayPal.

Do you think they will pay Apple to host their free program to never make money of it?...

Talk about being a fan...

aec007

@TommySez:
Are there ways to distribute other than through Apple? Other posts suggest not.
That's right. According to what we've heard just now, the App Store through iTunes would be the only way to distribute.

theCornerinvasion

@aec007: youd be paying $99 for promoting your "skills" through a high traffic area. thats actually pretty good. and if you wanna sell it, 70% also kicks ass.

izim1

Another payment for another Touch upgrade.... Geez Apple, nice way to say thanks to yor early adopters.

The Full English Please!!

We could also see some charitable souls allowing many small-times programmers to publish under their paid-for channel/account/whatever.

LandShark

At least in the live feed it clearly states that free apps have no charge. I suspect the $99 only applies when you are selling the program. Then you also give Apple 30% of your profit, but it's still a pretty decent deal for small time developers. I'm guessing larger fish will have their own Apple deals.. (would EA really give Apple 30% of its sales?)

abes2

@aec007: No to host'em. Yeah hard drives are kinda expensive. Or not :P

IVPPITER

Are there ways to distribute other than through Apple? Other posts suggest not.

Despite my love for my MacBook, Apple just keeps looking worse and worse.

TommySez

@thistle.john:

If they belive in their product they will pay. I mean come on 99 USD is really cheap for what you get.

Redwraithvienna

Come again?
You have to PAY to distribute free software?
There's going to be very little free software at iTunes.

aec007

@thistle.john: it'll be on itunes for free after the $99 (gets you promoted which is a lot cheaper than advertising on places like the 'Giz and engadget) and raking in 70% revenue is pretty damn high when you factor in hosting, promotion, overhead, etc

discounteggroll

@trendspotter:
Seriously. I have to pay again?! This bites.

theCornerinvasion

@trendspotter: I know... If I could afford an iphone I would get one but I only could a buy a touch, do they think we can pay more every time?

VakeroRokero

how many of the small scale developers will want to shed out 99 bucks, for producing one or two free apps?

thistle.john

very interesting..

Buzzed

iPod Touch users will have to shell out another 'nominal fee' to upgrade to 2.0 app ready software... It's getting expensive to keep your touch up-to-date!

trendspotter

free ist guten

cryptoknight

SDK = Mac only.

Screw Apple, more like the 'hated' Microsoft every day.

rennyn

@knvb1123:
it costs apple money for the infrastructure - and taking a 30% cut is more than fair for what they are providing IMO.

Imagine how happy we would be with the RIAA if they started giving artists 70%. Hell imagine how happy Americans would be with their government if THEY let us keep 70% !

nutbastard

I really would like Apple to let free software be distributed free. It just shows how Apple's hungry for profits, rather than actually promoting the good side of majority of us, developers.

knvb1123

@aec007:

good luck with your free WWW angelfire hosted search results (I do commend you for donating to freeware screen savers you have downloaded over the years).

btw-no I am not a "fan". I worked apple retail in the past and now repair their stuff (I am not employed by them in any facet), but I am VERY critical of their products, and call them out on everything I can. I find this to be quite beneficial because it provides a non-deviant foundation where developers can share information and help each other on neutral grounds. Considering what artists, writers, etc are receiving for their work compared to this (percentage-wise) is just insane. $99 as an up-front cost I think is more than reasonable.

discounteggroll

@xxdesmus: yeah ouch, I meant "they go out of their way to SCREW iPod Touch customers" ...doh.

xxdesmus

Yet again they go out of their way to screen iPod Touch customers. Yeah, f**k that. I am done giving Apple my money.

xxdesmus

Which means, if you want to use Free, Open-Source Software on your iPhone, you better keep jailbreaking it. Because most FOSS developers aren't going to shell out $99 per year just for distribution.

HeartBurnKid

@nutbastard:
Well this article says it's an ANNUAL fee. I can't imagine much people trying homebrew stuff for that reason. If they have a reasonable expection of actually sell software then it's a very good deal, but if they just want to put out a free app then it's a little steep.

stopcrazypp

@HeartBurnKid:
they will if it brings them much more than $99 back and is simply more convenient/effective than alternative routes.
the problem with unverified home brew stuff for phones is phones don't have anti-virus software. If something malicious gets on there, unless it bricks your phone or otherwise makes itself known, you'd have no idea what it was doing, or even that it was there. $99 crap filter FTW.

nutbastard

$99 is a mighty fine noise filter; just enough to block mucho crapware from wasting my time.

whootowl

@aec007: so you donate $5 bucks yet you cry about no freeware? would you pay $1 for making sure that "freeware" is "crap-free"? if 150 people did, the developer gets his cash and people get some piece of mind.. just for a buck....

izim1

@knvb1123:

I think it's pretty simple. And I'm taking your word for it that you're a developer, and not somebody who just wants to act like one to bitch about this deal: If you are a developer making an app worth anything to anybody, it will be easy for you to find a way to finance the $99, even if it's a "freeware".

E.g., there are many, MANY donation wares out there and, if you're really a developer worth a damn, you know those wares can rake in $100 easy. So, distribute it "free" on the iPhone App Store w/o restrictions, and ask for donations on your website.

And to reiterate what I said above, if your app isn't good enough to make me and another 98 people want to donate $1 each through Paypal, then frankly, your app doesn't deserve to be on the App Store.

Dearhaw

@izim1:
A buck does not guarantee good software. You can also buy crapware for a buck.
And I seriously doubt you will be able to "download-and-try-before-you-buy" with iTunes.
It'll be more like poker. Pay to see. And if you don't like it... sorry.
You will not be able to try before you buy with that arrangement otherwise Apple would not get their cut.

If you like any iTunes freeware you tried... you would not be able to buy it...
So what? Developers will be forced to do 2 versions of each application? One that is crippled to try for free and a good one for cash?

I personally never bought any application that I tested in crippled "free" mode. Yet I have donated to freeware developers because I liked what I tested and used.

BTW, you CAN get crap-free software. 1000's of sites. Maybe it's not common for Apple users because there are 1000000:1 ratio of Mac vs Windows programs out there.

Personally, I think Apple should have charged a minimum fee for the SDK ($19.95) and make iTunes Marketplace free to developers. But knowing Apple, you would need to download a new compatible SDK for another $19.95 next year. Like Quicktime.

aec007

@nutbastard: Did you hear me say "Free Open-Source Software"? As in "no charge"? Most of these people aren't looking to make anything back. They're not interested in the least in selling software.

This very problem is why Sourceforge was created. With Apple controlling the iPhone, however, there may never be a Sourceforge for FOSS on that platform, unless you count Installer.app and the problems inherent in jailbreaking.

HeartBurnKid

Basically, Apple is charging $99 for the SDK. The "download the SDK for free" point is just gimmick marketing.

xAppleFan

The SDK is Mac only as it's actually a variant of XCode. The iPhone is a Mac OS X box, plain and simple. To create a complete version of the OS X dev tools for Windows would be an incredible effort - and would probably yield little profit.

Now ironically enough, ten years ago you could do cross platform OS X (Rhapsody I think at the time...) / Windows development using Yellow Box. But Steve killed that project, and XCode was never brought to Windows.

barryannarbor

@aec007:

Do you even work in IT? $99 is cheap to be able to publish your app on iTunes, which already has a huge install base. No cost for SDK.

Also, you have to think of it in terms of security. By making the distribution exclusive to the iTunes store, Apple can filter or flag potential malware apps. There are always people out to do harm or scam people or produce spyware, so iTunes exclusivity is actually a good thing.

If devs were freely able to distribute through their own channels, and iPhones gets compromised by malware, Apple ultimately will incur the support costs for potentially disabled or bricked iPhones.

Here you are complaining about the $99 fee, clearly you have not given the whole issue the enough thought, or perhaps you do not possess the mental capacity to understand the full scope of issues.

Spar

Money greedy apple.

30% of your sales price goes to apple!!!!!!!!

It seems like apple will never understand the developer-friendly open system like RIM does.

tamilnj

The sdk is based on XCode.

I don't know how many people here are developers, but XCode is TRASH.

They could have at least made it an eclipse plugin or something.

I probably would have paid for the SDK if it was even halfway decent, but I'm not paying to bang fucking rocks together.

bpatten

i could be wrong, but my impression was that:

SDK is free download
it's free to publish apps
$99/yr is for the developer subscription, which gives you access to other tools and resources and specifically allows you to publish your app to the App Store and iTunes.

you CAN complete a *FREE* developer registration and download the *FREE* SDK to test your goods. and i'm assuming once you've paid the $99 for the initial year developer subscription and published your app, you will not have to maintain your subscription for the app to remain on the App Store, so really $99 is not a bad deal if you feel your app is worth a damn. this will probably help to weed out the people who write ridiculously worthless apps and clutter the App Store with them- similar to the sea of worthless "apps" on lesser mobile devices.

Thank you Apple.

bigfatduck

Is there any way to make this work on Windows?

wvv