Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Wiskedjak · Mar 8, 2008, 09:34 PM

Originally Posted by imitchellg5

Apple has basically gone through no expenditure at all to make the SDK available besides the server space hosting it

And, I'm sure the $99/year goes towards the hosting of the app.

imitchellg5 · Mar 8, 2008, 11:04 PM

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

And, I'm sure the $99/year goes towards the hosting of the app.

$99 is to have access to all the iPhone dev stuff as well. It's actually pretty reasonable. But like I said and Steve said, free apps are totally free to all.

butterfly0fdoom · Mar 8, 2008, 11:52 PM

Originally Posted by imitchellg5

Sure. But like I said you didn't have to pay for 10.5.2 which had huge improvement and new functionality over 10.5.1. The difference between 2.0 and 1.1.3 isn't like 10.4.11 and 10.5.2. It's still basically exactly the same besides the ability to purchase apps and iTunes has a new icon. Apple has basically gone through no expenditure at all to make the SDK available besides the server space hosting it, they basically said that in the presentation. And a company with $15m in the bank can afford that.

No, actually, 10.5.2 only expands on the functionality of functions existing in 10.5. No new functions are added. Time machine in the menu bar doesn't change Time Machine, nor is it a dramatic new function. 2.0 adds enterprise functionalities, as well.

Originally Posted by imitchellg5

Not true. Apple made an update for 5G owners that gave them all the functionality of the 5.5G iPods except the search function, which is near useless with a clickwheel anyway (as a side note, it seems odd that they don't feature this on iPhones/touches.

I meant the difference between the 5G and 6G, not 5G and 5.5G. 5G and 6G iPods have the same internal parts per iSuppli. However, they have dramatically different firmwares. If one desires the Cover Flow and other functions of the 6G iPod, one must upgrade the hardware, as well.

TheoCryst · Mar 9, 2008, 12:23 AM

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Exactly. I doubt we'll be seeing many free apps on the iPlatform. The only free apps will be from developers using them to promote their commercial products (like AIM, Google, Facebook, Flikr), or from out-of-work developers wanting to showcase their skills.

Or from people (like me) who are just happy knowing that people are using their software. I fully intend on buying a $99 registration (once I get an iPhone in December), and highly doubt I'll be charging a cent for any app(s) I write. Even if you decide to charge a whopping $1 for your software, you'll have broken even if you can muster 143 purchases a year (after the obligatory 30% for hosting).

analogika · Mar 9, 2008, 07:27 AM

Originally Posted by Dale Sorel

Re: AppleTV 2.0 being a huge update:

They sure did... I think the difference here is that the Touch has been a huge success, while the Apple TV has been a much lesser success (flop). So I'm sure Apple is hoping new software can only help their pet project.

Apple TV 2.0 is NOT hugely new functionality.

The only new functions are 1) Airport Express functionality - which isn't really much different from what it could do before - and 2) Movie rentals - which *is* new functionality, but incurs additional cost every time it is accessed, anyways, and thus doesn't fall under the Sarbanes-Oxley act.

Wiskedjak · Mar 9, 2008, 10:21 AM

Originally Posted by TheoCryst

Or from people (like me) who are just happy knowing that people are using their software. I fully intend on buying a $99 registration (once I get an iPhone in December), and highly doubt I'll be charging a cent for any app(s) I write. Even if you decide to charge a whopping $1 for your software, you'll have broken even if you can muster 143 purchases a year (after the obligatory 30% for hosting).

Excellent, I hope there are more developers like you!

Wiskedjak · Mar 9, 2008, 10:23 AM

Originally Posted by butterfly0fdoom

No, actually, 10.5.2 only expands on the functionality of functions existing in 10.5. No new functions are added.

If Apple never adds new functionality to incremental OS updates, then why do Mac users get all worked up into a MacWorld-OMG-they-just-released-the-iPhone-like frenzy whenever one is released?

Wiskedjak · Mar 9, 2008, 10:37 AM

Originally Posted by analogika

Apple TV 2.0 is NOT hugely new functionality.

The only new functions are 1) Airport Express functionality - which isn't really much different from what it could do before - and 2) Movie rentals - which *is* new functionality, but incurs additional cost every time it is accessed, anyways, and thus doesn't fall under the Sarbanes-Oxley act.

Ah, but money will be exchanging hands for the apps as well. I'm sure, if they wanted to, that they could make an argument for why new functionality for the iPod Touch is exempt from the Sarbanes-Oxley act.

Still, though, no one has explained why Microsoft and Sony are apparently exempt the Sarbanes-Oxley act. Why is it that only Apple customers are subject to this act?

imitchellg5 · Mar 9, 2008, 11:11 AM

Originally Posted by butterfly0fdoom

I meant the difference between the 5G and 6G, not 5G and 5.5G. 5G and 6G iPods have the same internal parts per iSuppli. However, they have dramatically different firmwares. If one desires the Cover Flow and other functions of the 6G iPod, one must upgrade the hardware, as well.

Oh sorry about that. Some people refer to the 5.5G as 6G which I thought you were doing. It is possible to get most of the classic functions on the 6G, but it will probably kill your warranty if there's any left...

k squared · Mar 9, 2008, 11:32 AM

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

...Still, though, no one has explained why Microsoft and Sony are apparently exempt the Sarbanes-Oxley act. Why is it that only Apple customers are subject to this act?

Do we know how they account for the income? Direct or subscription? What are the Sony/Microsoft examples?

Currently, it appears that Apple only reports subscription payments on the apple TV and iPhone, so free updates over the duration of the payments.

Really, what's the big deal?

Wiskedjak · Mar 9, 2008, 12:15 PM

Originally Posted by k squared

Do we know how they account for the income? Direct or subscription? What are the Sony/Microsoft examples?

2 related examples:
MS gave Zune2 functionality to Zune1 owners for free.
Sony added web browsing and location free TV functionality to PSP owners for free.

Neither has any sort of subscription model.

I don't know how Apple can report any subscription model for the Apple TV, since the Apple TV has no subscription model.

imitchellg5 · Mar 9, 2008, 12:16 PM

Originally Posted by k squared

Do we know how they account for the income? Direct or subscription? What are the Sony/Microsoft examples?

Currently, it appears that Apple only reports subscription payments on the apple TV and iPhone, so free updates over the duration of the payments.

Really, what's the big deal?

The Zune and PSP, especially the PSP. Since I got my PSP two years ago there it has become practically a whole new device with just software updates. Sony releases huge software updates probably every two to three months that add a pretty incredible amount of new features. And they're absolutely free.

analogika · Mar 9, 2008, 12:23 PM

Sony isn't based in the US. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act doesn't apply.

Wiskedjak · Mar 9, 2008, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by analogika

Sony isn't based in the US. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act doesn't apply.

I'd be willing to bet that Sony is selling it's products in the US through the Sony Corporation of America. But, ok. Microsoft is based in the US. Are they exempt from Sarbanes Oxley?

In any case, I still hold that any argument which can be made for free new functionality on the Apple TV can also be applied for free new functionality on the iPod Touch.

butterfly0fdoom · Mar 9, 2008, 04:06 PM

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

If Apple never adds new functionality to incremental OS updates, then why do Mac users get all worked up into a MacWorld-OMG-they-just-released-the-iPhone-like frenzy whenever one is released?

Because Mac users are just easily excited. 10.5.2 only reverted Stacks, allows the deletion of transparency in the menu bar, made Time Machine more accessible, and had big fixes. Hardly a swath of new features.

analogika · Mar 9, 2008, 05:54 PM

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

I'd be willing to bet that Sony is selling it's products in the US through the Sony Corporation of America. But, ok. Microsoft is based in the US. Are they exempt from Sarbanes Oxley?

In any case, I still hold that any argument which can be made for free new functionality on the Apple TV can also be applied for free new functionality on the iPod Touch.

Third time: *What* new functionality on the Apple TV? (apart from that, I do recall Apple stating explicitly a while ago that the AppleTV is accounted for under a subscription model specifically so that they'd be able to roll out additional functionality)

BRussell · Mar 9, 2008, 06:05 PM

New AppleTV functionality? Movie Rentals is the main one. I'd say that's a pretty big feature addition. Also: No computer syncing required. Flickr and .mac photos. Direct viewing/listening to podcasts without subscribing to them. Airtunes. New interface.

Wiskedjak · Mar 9, 2008, 07:55 PM

Originally Posted by analogika

I do recall Apple stating explicitly a while ago that the AppleTV is accounted for under a subscription model specifically so that they'd be able to roll out additional functionality

Then they're lying, or pulling some sort of tricky accounting for the aTV that they've decided not to use for the Touch. The aTV has no subscription model. Certainly no subscription model that the Touch doesn't also have.

If you don't consider all the stuff Apple rolled out for aTV 2.0 to be new functionality, then why did they even bother? According to you, aTV 1.0 could do everything aTV 2.0 can.

What do you consider to be new functionality for the Touch with the SDK? The ability to run applications? It could already do that. The ability to add new apps? It could already do that as well (as evidenced by the addition of the iPhone apps). About the only thing being added to the Touch is the ability to get apps without having to sync to your computer, and even that functionality already existed by way of a 3rd party application: Installer.app (which even allowed us to upgrade the OS to 1.1.3 without having to sync). Heck, Apple could have even used Installer.app. In any case, being able to download new apps without having to sync could easily be considered an extension of existing functionality.

k squared · Mar 9, 2008, 09:14 PM

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Then they're lying, or pulling some sort of tricky accounting for the aTV that they've decided not to use for the Touch. The aTV has no subscription model. Certainly no subscription model that the Touch doesn't also have...

The "subscription" is how Apple reports the income from the sale of the appleTV. Rather than reporting the $299 all at once, it spreads the income over a set number of quarters. Same with the iPhone. With the touch, Apple records the full price within the quarter it's sold.

Wiskedjak · Mar 9, 2008, 09:45 PM

Originally Posted by k squared

The "subscription" is how Apple reports the income from the sale of the appleTV. Rather than reporting the $299 all at once, it spreads the income over a set number of quarters.

Ummmmm .... so why not just do the same thing for the Touch?

Drakino · Mar 10, 2008, 02:23 AM

Originally Posted by imitchellg5

All it would take for the SDK itself to be universal is for the coder to check "Universal" instead of "Intel" when he launched Xcode.

If only it were actually that simple. While Apple has done a much better job of making cross compatibility work compared to their competitors, a simple checkbox isn't going to magically make all code work, especially low level code needed for emulators.

The developer toolkit installed on my PowerPC Mini, I'll check later if the Intel only statement is indeed just to piss off the local PowerPC fanboys or actually factual.

analogika · 06:24 AM

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Then they're lying, or pulling some sort of tricky accounting for the aTV that they've decided not to use for the Touch. The aTV has no subscription model. Certainly no subscription model that the Touch doesn't also have.

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Ummmmm .... so why not just do the same thing for the Touch?

Maybe they will.

I think they weren't quite clear on what would happen with the iPod touch series when they released it. I think their business model is just starting to evolve quite differently from what they initially had planned (just another static addition to the iPod line) - or rather, it's taking off like crazy from an initial "let's just release it and see what happens" stance.

I think that not including Mail, Maps, and whatever was a deliberate attempt to create a distinction between the iPod touch and the iPhone.

I think that when the clamoring began, and the cracked apps started to multiply like crazy, and the iPod touch took off, they decided that it made more sense to offer a third-party SDK with identical features for BOTH lines and make a lot more money that way than they were losing in cannibalized or jailbroken iPhones.

But this is something they might have been hoping would happen, but weren't willing to bet their house on initially.

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

If you don't consider all the stuff Apple rolled out for aTV 2.0 to be new functionality, then why did they even bother? According to you, aTV 1.0 could do everything aTV 2.0 can.

I was asking YOU what's new.

HD movie rentals aren't a function AT ALL unless you're willing to pay as you go (which, to answer your question, is why they bothered).

I suppose Flickr and .Mac photo searching would qualify, though. Perhaps direct podcast searching as well.

analogika · Mar 10, 2008, 06:20 AM

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

What do you consider to be new functionality for the Touch with the SDK?

Exchange support. Coming in 2.0.

Wiskedjak · Mar 10, 2008, 08:48 AM

Originally Posted by analogika

Exchange support. Coming in 2.0.

That's not new functionality. That could easily be considered an extension of it's current email functionality.

Wiskedjak · Mar 10, 2008, 09:19 AM

Originally Posted by analogika

HD movie rentals aren't a function AT ALL unless you're willing to pay as you go (which, to answer your question, is why they bothered).

Agreed. There is Airtunes as well. But, this is no more "new" than the iPhone/Touch email application supporting Exchange

Originally Posted by analogika

I suppose Flickr and .Mac photo searching would qualify, though. Perhaps direct podcast searching as well.

These are most certainly new.

analogika · Mar 10, 2008, 09:34 AM

Either way, not relevant, since the accounting model is a different one for the Apple TV.
MacNN | Changes in accounting for Apple TV, iPhone
Accounting rules behind iPod touch update charge - PC-WELT

analogika · Mar 10, 2008, 09:36 AM

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

That's not new functionality. That could easily be considered an extension of it's current email functionality.

The same way 802.11n was an extension of then-current functionality, and adding TDM support to Logic 7 was an extension of then-current functionality; IOW: new functionality.

Wiskedjak · Mar 10, 2008, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by analogika

The same way 802.11n was an extension of then-current functionality, and adding TDM support to Logic 7 was an extension of then-current functionality; IOW: new functionality.

In which case, we've just proven that, for computing platforms, which the iPhone/Touch most certainly is, there really is no such thing as "new functionality". Almost anything could be considered an extension of existing functionality.

Wiskedjak · Mar 10, 2008, 10:43 AM

Originally Posted by analogika

Either way, not relevant, since the accounting model is a different one for the Apple TV.

Which I still don't get. The Touch also has the ability to generate monthly income for Apple. Given that there are likely more Touch users making purchases through it than AppleTV users doing the same, and that Apple is already developing the software for the iPhone, I don't understand why the Touch isn't accounted for in the same manner as the aTV and iPhone.

And, again, there's still the fact that Microsoft apparently doesn't have to worry about all this software-upgrade-accounting garbage. I'm not going to be sticking around very long with a platform that charges me every time there's a software upgrade when other platforms offer upgrades for free. Either that, or I'll be looking for other avenues to upgrade my device.

analogika · Mar 10, 2008, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by analogika

Maybe they will.

I think they weren't quite clear on what would happen with the iPod touch series when they released it. I think their business model is just starting to evolve quite differently from what they initially had planned (just another static addition to the iPod line) - or rather, it's taking off like crazy from an initial "let's just release it and see what happens" stance.

I think that not including Mail, Maps, and whatever was a deliberate attempt to create a distinction between the iPod touch and the iPhone.

I think that when the clamoring began, and the cracked apps started to multiply like crazy, and the iPod touch took off, they decided that it made more sense to offer a third-party SDK with identical features for BOTH lines and make a lot more money that way than they were losing in cannibalized or jailbroken iPhones.

But this is something they might have been hoping would happen, but weren't willing to bet their house on initially.

'nuff said the first time around.

Visnaut · Mar 10, 2008, 05:36 PM

Originally Posted by Drakino

To make the SDK work on PowerPC systems, Apple would need to make the iPhone emulator work on both sides. Emulators aren't easy to make, and the major difficulty here is emulating the ARM processor in the phone. Now Intel has a big part in the ARM processor, and likely shared a lot of work with Apple to get this up and running. This is effort spent to allow an SDK to work on a platform Apple will stick with for a long time. However to do the same for PowerPC would take even more effort, for an architecture that is fading from the Mac world.

I have a PowerPC, and as much as it sucks for me right now, I have to agree with what you have to say: Apple's got to cut the cord at some point.

But check this out:

Surprise, iPhone SDK also works on PowerPC Macs - iPhone Atlas

seivad · Mar 10, 2008, 06:29 PM

so we are able to get the SDK now? or do we have to wait til June? $99 isnt bad for hosting the app and getting support etc... Apples employees need to feed their kids too.

I'll be disappointed if we have to wait until June just to use the apps

imitchellg5 · Mar 10, 2008, 06:38 PM

Originally Posted by seivad

so we are able to get the SDK now? or do we have to wait til June? $99 isnt bad for hosting the app and getting support etc... Apples employees need to feed their kids too.

I'll be disappointed if we have to wait until June just to use the apps

Uh, yes. And you're in for a disappointment.

seivad · Mar 10, 2008, 06:47 PM

thats a bit of a tease isnt it? but we can still test/develop now and come June, are able to upload it?

if thats the case, anyone with XCode will be able to install other peoples apps before June then, windows users will miss out.

Big Mac · Mar 10, 2008, 06:58 PM

Originally Posted by Visnaut

I have a PowerPC, and as much as it sucks for me right now, I have to agree with what you have to say: Apple's got to cut the cord at some point.

Tosh.

But check this out:

Surprise, iPhone SDK also works on PowerPC Macs - iPhone Atlas

If it installs partially on (real) Macs why is Apple saying it's Intel only? And if it can be forced to install completely with the iPhone emulator, and the iPhone emulator is a UB, why does Apple feel the need to lie so brazenly?

imitchellg5 · Mar 10, 2008, 10:11 PM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Tosh.

If it installs partially on (real) Macs why is Apple saying it's Intel only? And if it can be forced to install completely with the iPhone emulator, and the iPhone emulator is a UB, why does Apple feel the need to lie so brazenly?

Apple has said that several apps are Intel only, but they work fine on PowerPC Macs. It's a subversive way to get us PowerPC nerds over to Intel. Never Apple! Although we have an Intel Mac mini in the house now, but it's not mine.

analogika · Mar 11, 2008, 03:47 AM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

If it installs partially on (real) Macs

It doesn't. You won't get it to install at all on a 680x0 machine.

Big Mac · Mar 11, 2008, 11:47 AM

So is it true that SDK apps get interrupted by calls and can't be resumed?

imitchellg5 · Mar 11, 2008, 04:52 PM

Originally Posted by analogika

It doesn't. You won't get it to install at all on a 680x0 machine.

Ha ha, very true. I was thinking that beastly Power Mac 8100 in the garage that never dies...

imitchellg5 · Mar 11, 2008, 04:53 PM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

So is it true that SDK apps get interrupted by calls and can't be resumed?

According to the Human Rights Interface thing, yes. But I doubt it. Apple's apps don't do that.

0157988944 · Mar 11, 2008, 05:07 PM

By adding in one line of code, it can be ignored.

seivad · Mar 11, 2008, 05:16 PM

that line being? is that to temporarily save the app in its current state then once the user comes back it begins from that break point?

k squared · Mar 11, 2008, 06:38 PM

Originally Posted by seivad

that line being? is that to temporarily save the app in its current state then once the user comes back it begins from that break point?

Isn't this how every iPhone app should work automatically? When I "quit" notes, it saves the state it's in until I "open" it again. Same with Maps, Weather, etc. Whenever you switch apps, it quits/saves the state of the app in question.

Some apps, like Mail, run in the background. I'm not sure how I feel about allowing SDK apps to do this...unless there's a Activity Monitor app released to I can check usage, etc.

Actually, Activity Monitor is a good example of a run-away background app: prior versions had a process leak which consumed a lot of memory.

Big Mac · Mar 12, 2008, 05:36 AM

Good to know it's not a rigid limitation, as so many trollish posters on /. seemed to think.

starman · Mar 13, 2008, 09:28 AM

Has anyone been "handpicked" by Apple to be a developer yet? I didn't see when they'd start picking people.

greenG4 · Mar 13, 2008, 10:42 AM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Good to know it's not a rigid limitation, as so many trollish posters on /. seemed to think.

Off topic, but there are a TON of Apple-haters on /. It's unbelievavble.

analogika · Mar 13, 2008, 10:46 AM

There are?

I don't think I've ever bothered reading at below +2 levels or so.

greenG4 · Mar 13, 2008, 10:51 AM

Originally Posted by analogika

There are?

I don't think I've ever bothered reading at below +2 levels or so.

I seem to get selected to mod a lot lately and I browse at -1 for that. That's when I started noticing. Most of the haters get modded down. But there were still a lot of people modding the haters as "Insightful" in the latest iPhone SDK discussion.