Apple Media Event: Back to the Mac (Here comes Lion!)

[Flames0910]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

This may seem like a stupid question but don't you think the lack of SD card on the 11.3" kind of lame?

Seems like something I use all the time and seems standard on so many devices. I suppose you could just bring your camera's USB cable but that seems annoying if you wanna see pics on the go.

it's probably just too small that there is no way they could even cram it in without sacrificing something else (battery life, memory, etc).

just get a small usb card reader.

[KTrain]

An SD card has limited other uses though. A USB port, in theory, could be used for hundreds of different peripherals, including cameras. They needed the most bang for their buck in terms of what was taking up space.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by silentsim

Because they would lose a significant amount of larger developers who refuse to give Apple the 30%, such as the Creative Suite, and probably even the Microsoft Office suite. It won't happen, amongst other things.

So why do developers tolerate it on the iOS platforms? There are a number of apps now in the million dollars of revenue club. Apple's cut isn't chump change for these companies (and conversely, Apple's app store has made them a LOT of money they may not otherwise had made in a fragmented or non-existent app store)

You could argue Apple is dominant in the mobile app space, but they actually only have like what, 20% of the smartphone market? This compares pretty well to Apple's market in the PC world too, if we believe the numbers they trotted out today.

It's an interesting situation. At the end of the day, I'm sure Apple is shooting for something like Steam, and know they can never lock it down like they did with iOS without ceding massive amounts of goodwill and market share back to the PC.

[silentsim]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

So why do developers tolerate it on the iOS platforms? There are a number of apps now in the million dollars of revenue club. Apple's cut isn't chump change for these companies (and conversely, Apple's app store has made them a LOT of money they may not otherwise had made in a fragmented or non-existent app store)

You could argue Apple is dominant in the mobile app space, but they actually only have like what, 20% of the smartphone market? This compares pretty well to Apple's market in the PC world too, if we believe the numbers they trotted out today.

It's an interesting situation. At the end of the day, I'm sure Apple is shooting for something like Steam, and know they can never lock it down like they did with iOS without ceding massive amounts of goodwill and market share back to the PC.

Well, The App Store was the first major mobile platform for shopping apps. (I think?). And with the popularity of it, other stores spawned, such as the Android market. Developers have made millions in a market that did not use to exist (to this extent). They created an opportunity for developers that some never had, alongside a good SDK.

The computing market has been well established, and switching to a platform where you would instantly lose 30% of your revenue due to a closed down system would not make the majority of developers pleased. Especially with developers like Microsoft, Adobe, etc.

But yes, I do think Apple is shooting for something *exactly* like Steam, but for apps (and some games, but hopefully this will just make Steam more competitive, but they did display Steam in the Keynote today)

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by FlamesPuck12

How can we know for sure that they will never lock down the OS?
Apple loves closed, regulated system. I also heard that the Intel TC processor (or something like that, I can't quite remember what it was actually called) will only execute digitally signed software, so if Apple decides to lock the OS down, they could use the TC processor.

Interesting factoid - Apple's binaries are already digitally signed. I can't remember what this means, compared to non-signed apps, but the apps that ship with the OS are blessed in a way that others are not. The infrastructure is already there.

here is some info I just googled up: http://www.iospirit.com/blog/archive/2009/4/

[Flames0910]

^It's a good point (something I hadn't considered), but you said it yourself - they would have to give up too much to do it.

Too little to gain and so much to lose.

The difference is they started with a closed system on the iPhone. OS X is pandora's box and it was opened a looong time ago.

This is great news for small developers though. We might see some serious innovation returning to the big screen devices.

Edit: the "^" refers to sclitheroe's original line of thought.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by silentsim

Developers have made millions in a market that did not use to exist.

Not unlike the situation developers are facing now - at one time, Mac had 2-3% market share. Apple today says it's 20. There's a new market for Mac apps, arguably, that didn't exist a few years ago. It's growing every quarter by millions of consumer too.

Ultimately, though I agree with you. Apple will position the App Store as the preeminent place to get the highest quality apps. Developers will make up the 30% cut on volume no doubt.

There are big benefits potentially for consumers, and for developers too if they can afford Apple's cut. It's potentially going to be a very good thing for everyone.

Edit: developers won't make it up on volume - i bet overall the App store will help raise the price of high quality apps. Which is fine. I don't mind shelling out money for really good indy apps, I've bought plenty as a Mac user (to the amazement of the Windows folks, of course

[silentsim]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

Interesting factoid - Apple's binaries are already digitally signed. I can't remember what this means, compared to non-signed apps, but the apps that ship with the OS are blessed in a way that others are not. The infrastructure is already there.

here is some info I just googled up: http://www.iospirit.com/blog/archive/2009/4/

Little excerpt about that.

Said simply, by signing their applications, developers are able to uniquely identify themselves as the maker of a piece of software towards the operating systems. The identity that becomes attached to the code of a software through code signing is always unique and cryptographically secured. It can't be faked. Code signing also guarantees that the code of the software has not been altered or corrupted.

[silentsim]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

Not unlike the situation developers are facing now - at one time, Mac had 2-3% market share. Apple today says it's 20. There's a new market for Mac apps, arguably, that didn't exist a few years ago. It's growing every quarter by millions of consumer too.

Ultimately, though I agree with you. Apple will position the App Store as the preeminent place to get the highest quality apps. Developers will make up the 30% cut on volume no doubt.

There are big benefits potentially for consumers, and for developers too if they can afford Apple's cut. It's potentially going to be a very good thing for everyone.

As Flames mentioned above, a huge factor is starting closed vs open and a transition to closed.

I do see A LOT of small developers loving the idea of this app store- for example, many people had not heard of an application called iFlicks i recently pointed out. Apps like that would greatly benefit from such an App Store, as it would handle distribution, payment, marketing all in one. I do NOT see Microsoft Office *ever* (and apps of the same stature, AutoCAD etc) hitting the Mac App Store.

The End result: Mac users will find a lot of excellent apps they never heard about, these developers will profit and have a potential to make millions (Angry Birds devs!) And hopefully, as we have seen in the transition of iOS apps, the quality keeps going up and up.

[Flames0910]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

Ultimately, though I agree with you. Apple will position the App Store as the preeminent place to get the highest quality apps. Developers will make up the 30% cut on volume no doubt.

There are big benefits potentially for consumers, and for developers too if they can afford Apple's cut. It's potentially going to be a very good thing for everyone.

Quoted for truth. Just like in the App Store on iPhones and iPads, if you don't have a brand already (ie you're not in the game) then the store will be the place to be. Who knows, you might even be featured in a national advertising campaign.

Developer's will have both options. IMO a 30% cut is probably a worthwhile trade-off for the exposure you're going to get as opposed to going at it alone.

[silentsim]

Originally Posted by Flames0910

Quoted for truth. Just like in the App Store on iPhones and iPads, if you don't have a brand already (ie you're not in the game) then the store will be the place to be. Who knows, you might even be featured in a national advertising campaign.

Developer's will have both options. IMO a 30% cut is probably a worthwhile trade-off for the exposure you're going to get as opposed to going at it alone.

Yes. Getting featured by Apple is essentially a -guaranteed- way to boost sales.

For example, Recently an app named Trainyard was featured by Apple. This happened because the developer released a Lite version which instantly became popular. This lite version came out a while after the initial version.

The developer notes this

In the 4 months between launch and the end of September, I sold 2338 copies and made $3200.

Then he released the lite version. It reached #1 in downloads in Free apps on the app store. Then the premium version was featured as app of the week.

Since then, this is his sales



Full Story: http://struct.ca/2010/the-story-so-far/

EDIT: I should note that this is an excellent game, I recommend it to all, and it is on sale for 99 cents this week.

[Flames0910]

^

Anybody who's ever watched Dragon's Den knows how expensive national marketing campaigns are. Somebody who develops a great $2 app obviously can't afford it, but Apple can. Everybody wins.

[FanIn80]

Re: The earlier comment about companies like Adobe not wanting to publish to the App Store and give Apple 30% of their sale...

How much of each dollar does Adobe currently spend on bringing their Creative Suite software to market? I'm willing to bet they are making a hell of a lot less than 70 cents on the dollar right now.

People like to point out that Apple takes 30% like it's a bad thing. 30% is nothing, when compared to what it costs to go to market on your own. Throw in the fact that you have overnight access to an established user-base of over 230 million devices... and rocket surgery it ain't.

[llama64]

If Apple continues with it's relentless push to take a cut of everything run on it's platform, my hope is that they fix the comment/review system.

I try to use the comments to figure out what apps are worth buying (since they still haven't bothered with a timed demo system...), but half the time the comments are bi-polar. 20 people will give it 5 stars relentlessly claiming how awesome the app is (obvious marketing boosters). 3-4 people will give it 1 star and say it's stupid but that's as far as the criticism goes.

Developers tolerate this system as is right now because Apple holds the keys to an insanely massive market. If you play by the rules and are patient, there is a lot of money to be made. The sad part is what happens when the big publishers get in on this and start currying favor with Apple.

[gargamel]

I know next to nothing about Apple products, but I really like the idea of the 13inch Macbook Air. I don't do any gaming, but I'm planning to do a little website design and photoshop work. Would this make sense for me, and what upgrades should I get, if any?

[silentsim]

Originally Posted by gargamel

I know next to nothing about Apple products, but I really like the idea of the 13inch Macbook Air. I don't do any gaming, but I'm planning to do a little website design and photoshop work. Would this make sense for me, and what upgrades should I get, if any?

The macbook Pro will be more powerful, but the Air should do the trick. The base 13" will be fine, just get the 4GB Ram upgrade (100$)

[MickMcGeough]

Originally Posted by gargamel

I know next to nothing about Apple products, but I really like the idea of the 13inch Macbook Air. I don't do any gaming, but I'm planning to do a little website design and photoshop work. Would this make sense for me, and what upgrades should I get, if any?

You will not be happy with your life running CS5 on a 1.8Ghz CPU, even with the 4GB upgrade.

For $1450 I'd highly recommend just getting a 13" MBP and putting an SSD in it. Even the 13" MBP is a stretch for photoshop.

Macbook Air is a sexy machine, for sure, but not something I'd want to do web development on.

[Russic]

I'm also in the boat that thinks 30% just isn't that much. Look at an app like 1password ... I'm only assuming they'll be in there, but if they are they'll get pimped like crazy because it's a phenomenal app and a well respected name in the Mac community. I just don't see a scenario where they can't move many times the number of units they currently do, and really they don't need to move a whole lot more to make up the 30%.

What's great here is that if you don't agree with the practices or think apple is taking too big a share you don't need to use it. Go about your business in traditional methods and perhaps you'll fare better.

There are very reasonable questions that developers need answered and in my mind the biggest is how do you deal with demo periods? If a developer wants to give you the full fledged 100% product for a period of 15 days, will they be able to do that? I'm not sure a lite version would work quite as well.

[Barnes]

No demos, no licenses allowed.

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by MickMcGeough

You will not be happy with your life running CS5 on a 1.8Ghz CPU, even with the 4GB upgrade.

For $1450 I'd highly recommend just getting a 13" MBP and putting an SSD in it. Even the 13" MBP is a stretch for photoshop.

Macbook Air is a sexy machine, for sure, but not something I'd want to do web development on.

Would it work if I got the 2.1GHz processor with 4GB? Though I guess even if it did suit my needs, it's probably wouldn't be a great use of $1800.