Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 01-07-2011, 12:24 AM   #41
Flames0910
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

I know a few people have responded to this already...but the only way the 30% is evil is if your name is Bill Gates.

30% is a screaming price to advertise your program (potentially during prime time tv), bring it to market and perhaps most importantly, manage the logistics of delivery (including credit card processing fees and bandwidth).

There aren't many apps now, but this will take off like a bat out of hell. In a few years the argument will have switched from 'can it run on mac' to 'can it run on windows'
Casual games will be a huuuuge hit as well, especially with your less than typical gamer demographic.
Flames0910 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Flames0910 For This Useful Post:
Old 01-07-2011, 08:46 AM   #42
corporatejay
Franchise Player
 
corporatejay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Exp:
Default

I think the trust factor alone is worth a tonne. People assume that if it's on the app store, it's legit and they know they won't get ripped off and get their card skimmed or something.

Do you think people would have shelled out for angry birds randomly on the internet?
__________________
corporatejay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2011, 09:28 AM   #43
FanIn80
GOAT!
 
FanIn80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Exp:
Default

1 million apps downloaded on the first day, and there was only ~1000 apps to choose from.

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011...cappstore.html
FanIn80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2011, 09:35 AM   #44
kermitology
It's not easy being green!
 
kermitology's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: In the tubes to Vancouver Island
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Russic View Post
I know I'm going to knock your socks off here, but I'm going to disagree.

I really don't see how it's evil exactly. Evil in my eyes would be closing down the platform so apps can only be sold via this method. As of right now nothing has really changed ... developers are more than welcome to continue on with whatever they've been doing. If they want to have their app in the app store and generate more sales by doing essentially nothing that's up to them. I do suppose you could make the argument that if you have an app on your website and you have the same app on the app store, I as a consumer am going to go the route that screws you 30% for my convenience. On the other side of that coin though, if you only have your app on your site, I may be inclined to just overlook your app completely in favor of an app store alternative.

It isn't like apple has done absolutely nothing here. Developing the store and managing it would take resources. Of course they'll make metric sh*t-tons of money, but it's not exactly like they are providing no service whatsoever and just taking 30%.

The developers I've heard speak on the subject by and large think it's a good thing. There are obvious complaints, but for the most part everybody wants in. The most interesting opinion I heard was that one guy was concerned his presence in the app store would generate too many sales and he wouldn't be able to effectively manage his client load (he claimed 90% of his workload was helping people with issues and he rightfully felt that was imperative to his business model).
My opinion is that the ROI is massively in favour of Apple here. Apple stole the app store idea from the original jailbreakers, implemented it really well, and now they don't really have that much work to do to bring in iPad apps or OS X apps. And yes, I understand that they aren't cornering the market, but I still think they're trying to become the defacto source of OS X applications, where everyone goes to in the first place, and they get a 30% cut. I just don't think they've done enough to warrant that much of a cut.
__________________
Who is in charge of this product and why haven't they been fired yet?
kermitology is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2011, 09:45 AM   #45
kermitology
It's not easy being green!
 
kermitology's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: In the tubes to Vancouver Island
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phanuthier View Post
I don't know how great of an idea it really is, actually. 3 out of 4 startups in tech are Android Apps, and in the USA, Droid X is outselling iPhone4.

Now you can say that its due to the antenna fear, or because iPhone isn't on Verizon yet, but you got to wonder how long a fad can dominate a market. Especially when startups give you an idea what is "hip" and 3 out of 4 startups are Android Apps.

Then again, hard to argue with a $300B company as well too.
If 3/4 start ups are Android Apps, how many of them survive? The app development business is extremely difficult to make a profit on, and I'd say even more difficult on Android than on iOS. People HATE paying for software. They'll find any excuse not to pay for an app, so if you're relying solely on ad revenue, that's going to require that you develop one hell of an app to be popular enough to generate a return on investment. You're easily looking at spending over $1MM a year developing, supporting, an application, and that's with a small team. So I find it pretty hard to believe that all three of those tech startups are successful.

I'll bet that with your being connected in the Valley, 60-70% of those calls for people are really coming from the same people who fail over and over again until they finally get a hit. That's not an uncommon occurrence.

My personal opinion on app development is that the only money in it is as a contractor, or developing an app for the purpose of supporting other revenue streams (like the big banks bringing out apps).

As for the popularity of the iPhone 4 vs other devices, there is a major restriction on the number of iPhone 4's based on being tied to a single wireless provider. If the iPhone was available on more carriers, I think it would be much more prevalent.
__________________
Who is in charge of this product and why haven't they been fired yet?
kermitology is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2011, 10:08 AM   #46
MickMcGeough
First Line Centre
 
MickMcGeough's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

I'm guessing the "Chopper 2" authors are ok with App Store gouging.

http://www.macrumors.com/2011/01/07/...-nearly-30000/
__________________

MickMcGeough is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2011, 10:40 AM   #47
Phanuthier
Franchise Player
 
Phanuthier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Silicon Valley
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kermitology View Post
If 3/4 start ups are Android Apps, how many of them survive? The app development business is extremely difficult to make a profit on, and I'd say even more difficult on Android than on iOS. People HATE paying for software. They'll find any excuse not to pay for an app, so if you're relying solely on ad revenue, that's going to require that you develop one hell of an app to be popular enough to generate a return on investment. You're easily looking at spending over $1MM a year developing, supporting, an application, and that's with a small team. So I find it pretty hard to believe that all three of those tech startups are successful.

I'll bet that with your being connected in the Valley, 60-70% of those calls for people are really coming from the same people who fail over and over again until they finally get a hit. That's not an uncommon occurrence.

My personal opinion on app development is that the only money in it is as a contractor, or developing an app for the purpose of supporting other revenue streams (like the big banks bringing out apps).

As for the popularity of the iPhone 4 vs other devices, there is a major restriction on the number of iPhone 4's based on being tied to a single wireless provider. If the iPhone was available on more carriers, I think it would be much more prevalent.
On the list, I don't know how far they get, but a lot of them are at seed funding. The email list is mostly for early stage startups.

From the list, I don't know how many startup's they've failed on, but almost all of them have experience at Facebook and/or Google.

And yeah, I do think when Verizon starts to offer service for iPhone, we get can a better representation of who sells who.
__________________
"With a coach and a player, sometimes there's just so much respect there that it's boils over"
-Taylor Hall

Last edited by Phanuthier; 01-07-2011 at 10:53 AM.
Phanuthier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2011, 04:25 PM   #48
Flames0910
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kermitology View Post
My opinion is that the ROI is massively in favour of Apple here. Apple stole the app store idea from the original jailbreakers, implemented it really well, and now they don't really have that much work to do to bring in iPad apps or OS X apps. And yes, I understand that they aren't cornering the market, but I still think they're trying to become the defacto source of OS X applications, where everyone goes to in the first place, and they get a 30% cut. I just don't think they've done enough to warrant that much of a cut.
The ROI is definitely positive or else they wouldn't be doing it (otherwise they're stupid). But you're not considering the 'having an app store sells more computers' aspect.

Even if it did have a positive ROI without selling a single computer. Is that evil? If the service is valuable (for developers, users, etc) then I would say no.
Flames0910 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2011, 05:06 PM   #49
FanIn80
GOAT!
 
FanIn80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Exp:
Default

What's better for the developer? A bunch of different companies getting a combined 60% of their dollar to go to market, or a single company getting 30% of their dollar to do the same thing only better?

I've never understood why people get so hung up on Apple taking a 30% cut. I'd much rather pay them 30% than six other companies 60%. Besides, we're talking about the Mac App Store now... it's not like I can't also distribute my applications through the regular channels at the same time.
FanIn80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2011, 05:38 PM   #50
MickMcGeough
First Line Centre
 
MickMcGeough's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FanIn80 View Post
it's not like I can't also distribute my applications through the regular channels at the same time.
Exactly. It's not like on the iPhone where that was your only choice to get an app out there. This time it's completely voluntary. We'll see in the coming weeks/months if the developers like the deal or not.
__________________

MickMcGeough is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2011, 06:08 PM   #51
FanIn80
GOAT!
 
FanIn80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Exp:
Default

Some of the prices are pretty wonky. Why is Borderbund charging $40 for Mavis Beacon, when the retail boxed version is only $19.99 at Best Buy?

The retail boxed version gives you a pc install with the Mac install too.
FanIn80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2011, 10:02 PM   #52
Yeah_Baby
Franchise Player
 
Yeah_Baby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: still in edmonton
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kermitology View Post
. People HATE paying for software. They'll find any excuse not to pay for an app
This post 'literally raped' me for my 99 cents. One star.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke View Post
Thats why Flames fans make ideal Star Trek fans. We've really been taught to embrace the self-loathing and extreme criticism.
Check out The Pod-Wraiths: A Star Trek Deep Space Nine Podcast
Yeah_Baby is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Yeah_Baby For This Useful Post:
Old 01-08-2011, 12:11 AM   #53
KTrain
ALL ABOARD!
 
KTrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Exp:
Default

I haven't really looked into the policies on this, but what is Apple's stance on a developer offering their app in the App Store for, as an example, $20 and then selling it on their own website for $15.00. Can they include that price and link in the description of their product?

It sounds like a petty idea but some of companies could use the App store as an advertising tool to bipass the 30% take away by Apple.
KTrain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2011, 12:41 AM   #54
FanIn80
GOAT!
 
FanIn80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KTrain View Post
I haven't really looked into the policies on this, but what is Apple's stance on a developer offering their app in the App Store for, as an example, $20 and then selling it on their own website for $15.00. Can they include that price and link in the description of their product?

It sounds like a petty idea but some of companies could use the App store as an advertising tool to bipass the 30% take away by Apple.
I'm not sure about the policies, but I think apps are rated on purchases and downloads... so I'm not sure how promenant someone's app would be if people were leaving iTunes to download it from the company's website instead.
FanIn80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2011, 10:38 AM   #55
Badgers Nose
Franchise Player
 
Badgers Nose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Exp:
Default

I bought aperture but it has filled me with rage.

However assassins creed 2 is now steam play compatible so I got he Mac version gratis.
Badgers Nose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2011, 10:41 AM   #56
Badgers Nose
Franchise Player
 
Badgers Nose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KTrain View Post
I haven't really looked into the policies on this, but what is Apple's stance on a developer offering their app in the App Store for, as an example, $20 and then selling it on their own website for $15.00. Can they include that price and link in the description of their product?

It sounds like a petty idea but some of companies could use the App store as an advertising tool to bipass the 30% take away by Apple.
It's non exclusive. List in the app store or don't. Charge the same fee or don't.

Everything in the app store right now with a few exceptions is also available somewhere else. Hopefully this means that bundles like Mac heist will continue.

For me app store and steam should cover all the family needs for software.
Badgers Nose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2011, 11:12 AM   #57
Russic
Dances with Wolves
 
Russic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Section 304
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FanIn80 View Post
Some of the prices are pretty wonky. Why is Borderbund charging $40 for Mavis Beacon, when the retail boxed version is only $19.99 at Best Buy?

The retail boxed version gives you a pc install with the Mac install too.
My guess is that because Apple is being awesome about putting the apps on as many machines as you'd like combined with them being ridiculous about not allowing lite versions or in-app purchases that some companies are raising their prices to cover what they used to charge for multi-licenses.

I wonder how some of my favorite apps (Hazel and 1Password would get around this). The developer of Hazel has already said that he won't be releasing it on the app store. 1Password devs say they hope to be there shortly ... but they have a single/multi user pricing scheme, so I wonder how they'll approach that.

My guess is we're going to see a lot of practices like the developer of Tweetie 2 on the iphone, where the upgrade is billed as a whole new app instead of a charged upgrade.

I love the app store and think Apple has made a great decision, but some of their practices seem outright insane.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Badgers Nose View Post
I bought aperture but it has filled me with rage.

However assassins creed 2 is now steam play compatible so I got he Mac version gratis.
Really? Why? Aperture is pretty much my favorite app. Is it the general lack of speed?
Russic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2011, 12:43 PM   #58
Badgers Nose
Franchise Player
 
Badgers Nose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Exp:
Default

I don't like events odered alpha rather than chrono (all my events are just dates so alpha order screws everything up).

The flickr pub feature is strange. Synchs forever and only supports 500 images per flickr set ( because projects can only be 500 images). My sets are all bigger than 500.

Speed is ok. I have 8x 3 GHz and 12 gb of ram. I have been ripping DVDs in parallel and downloading steam games while playing with aperture so I don't know if I can fairly comment on it's speed.

It was $80 on app store, so I'll get over it.
Badgers Nose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2011, 01:10 PM   #59
opendoor
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Badgers Nose View Post
I don't like events odered alpha rather than chrono (all my events are just dates so alpha order screws everything up).
You could try using this date format in your event names:

YYYY/MM/DD

It was designed to be chronological when sorted alphabetically. Not an ideal situation, though.
opendoor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2011, 03:12 PM   #60
Russic
Dances with Wolves
 
Russic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Section 304
Exp:
Default

Mine are sorted by date ... There has to be a way.

Edit: oh wait, do you mean the library pane on the left or the project view thumbnails in the main viewer? I'm talking thumbnails.

Last edited by Russic; 01-08-2011 at 03:15 PM.
Russic is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:45 PM.

Calgary Flames
2023-24




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021