Apple's iPhone SDK Press Conference

[neufuse Veteran]

Do you still have to submit source code to apple? How do companies develope software for their own company only with out others getting it or apple? thats the nice thing about windows mobile... you can write closed software for your company only...

I would NEVER want another company that may or may not be competition looking at my source... you never know what they might take from it behind the scenes...

[Chicane-UK Veteran]

I don't even own an iPhone but it seems like a pretty fair deal to me.

App distribution comes from a single point - surely developers must be glad for the fact this will seriously hamper piracy of their software? Look at stuff like TomTom for Windows Mobile devices and how well ripped off that is! I don't know ANYONE who's ever actually bought it. At least with apps coming from a single place, secured with a certificate, devs might actually sell more apps if people have no choice but buy them! And if they decide to release freeware, it doesn't cost them anything bar their initial $99 dev kit outlay.

[osirisX]

Do you still have to submit source code to apple? How do companies develope software for their own company only with out others getting it or apple? thats the nice thing about windows mobile... you can write closed software for your company only...

I would NEVER want another company that may or may not be competition looking at my source... you never know what they might take from it behind the scenes...

In the Q&A afterwards someone asked about that.

Q: "How would an entperprise distribute internal applications?"

A: "Working on a special app for internal enterprise applications, it's being worked on."

[giga Veteran]

Do you still have to submit source code to apple? How do companies develope software for their own company only with out others getting it or apple? thats the nice thing about windows mobile... you can write closed software for your company only...

I would NEVER want another company that may or may not be competition looking at my source... you never know what they might take from it behind the scenes...

From the QA session:

Q: "How would an entperprise distribute internal applications?"

A: "Working on a special app for internal enterprise applications, it's being worked on."

[Quillz]

I'm not so sure on this, but wasn't it always made clear from the start that the iPod touch is accounted differently than the iPhone, so that new firmware updates are seen as largely new products, which is why they cost money on the touch but not on the iPhone? Because if people buying the touch knew this, then I don't see any basis for their complaining. After all, it's not like you'll be forced to upgrade at some point.

[mattmatik]

I'm not so sure on this, but wasn't it always made clear from the start that the iPod touch is accounted differently than the iPhone, so that new firmware updates are seen as largely new products, which is why they cost money on the touch but not on the iPhone? Because if people buying the touch knew this, then I don't see any basis for their complaining. After all, it's not like you'll be forced to upgrade at some point.

Yeah, they even said today that because it's accounted differently there will be a charge for the June update. So, it is a known issue and the information is out there. The problem is that, right or wrong I don't know, people feel they are entitled to the updates for free because Apple pretty much markets the Touch as the iPhone without the phone. Everything about it is the same except for the phone capability.

However, I think any rational person can see that AT&T gives a good portion of revenue to Apple for the iPhone, which is how Apple recuperates the free updates. Every user, every month nets Apple some profit whereas the Touch is a one-time profit.

Like I said, I don't know how right or wrong that is and I cannot speak for Touch owners since I only own the iPhone. But, it seems resonable to me.

[evo_spook]

Hmmm, on the iTouch fees, I think I could about understand new apps being charged, but OS updates should be a free upgrade I think.

[BigDaddy5]

Hmmm, on the iTouch fees, I think I could about understand new apps being charged, but OS updates should be a free upgrade I think.

I can see your point, but coming from apple, I can see why they didn't. It actually makes sense.

There are three customers they're targeting, really. Now you may argue you don't fall under either of these, but if you look at it very simply, you do.

The first is the iphone customer. They buy the iphone, and all of the perks that come with it.

The second an ipod touch customer who buys the device simply because of what it was the day they bought it. They may upgrade the firmware when itunes says to, but that's about it. They bought the device to have a touch screen ipod that plays movies. Maybe there's a few other details, like some may want a certain other feature, but the bottom line is they bought the device for what it is.

The third is the ipod touch customer who bought the ipod touch because they knew its an iphone without the phone part. There may be a ton of other reasons behind it, like the larger space, etc...but the bottom line is they wanted an ipod touch because they didn't want the iphone.

The first customer is a very profitable customer for apple. Apple releases free firmware updates for them because they are paying apple a monthly fee to use the phone.

The second is a one-time customer. They are content the way they are. Maybe they'll update, maybe they wont.

The third is the interesting one. This is the kind of customer who wants to make sure their ipod is as up to date as can be, because if the iphone can do it, so can the ipod touch. Yet they don't pay a monthly fee to apple. Nearly every single iphone customer pays a minimum of 60 bucks a month to AT&T and Apple. Ipod touch customers do not. But yet they get all the same features as the iphone. So now you have a customer who wants to basically have an iphone but doesn't want to be tied into one.

As an iphone customer, I would be upset if someone who doesn't pay a monthly fee got free feature updates too. Not to mention that the iphone was specifically mentioned as getting new features, the ipod touch was not. I wouldn't loose any sleep over it, but I would feel disenfranchised by apple. I'm paying all this money to apple, only to have them turn around and release a "budget" version of the same device I have, with more space. Apple never made any promises to keep the ipod touch updated with new features, so the fact that they are is pretty nice. A nominal fee is to be expected since there is no monthly fee going into it.

I think Apple is doing the right thing here, whether or not everyone agrees with it. They are doing what they have to, to appease their "high dollar" customers, while giving their "budget" customers new features at an affordable price.

Note: I do not think of customers this way, merely giving a corporate classification. You are more than welcome to disagree with my opinion of how Apple views it's customers, and I don't think they value one over the other.

[evo_spook]

Of the ones you listed, the group I would most belong to is number 3. And I see your point. I am to and froing between the bigger touch and the iphone, so much so that I will prob wait till June before jumping either way and see if 3G comes, Apple is being very mean with its definitions, Touch 32GB, iPhone only 16GB, but then giving it microphone, loud speaker and camera, but the Touch doesn't have monthly fees.

There is so many ways the iPhone could be better, but, if they did so, people could buy the phone and deactivate the phone and destroy Touch, or it could be the other way round, make touch too good and destroys the iphone, everything is a very finely balanced marketing exercise.

I'm surprised this hasn't made front page news :unsure:

[Lqv2015]

Stupid question. I have the Touch. What exactly will I be paying for compare to what are the iPhone user are getting for free. I know they all have to pay for certain softwares/games. I saw the video & figured out most of it.

[MrKuro]

Cool ... but things I need from the iphone before I get one:

- user replaceable battery

- expansion slot: sdhc microsd

- builtin gps

- copy and paste, mms, record video, etc

- CDMA version ... I am not switching providers just for a phone. my Bell mobility corp plan is just too good.

[osirisX]

Stupid question. I have the Touch. What exactly will I be paying for compare to what are the iPhone user are getting for free. I know they all have to pay for certain softwares/games.

I'm going to assume that bug fixes in Firmware 2.0 will be free. But you will have to pay for:

- App Store.

- The ability to use native 3rd party apps.

- All the enterprise features (Exchange, 802.1x, etc).

- Any updates to 1.1.4 apps.

[Lqv2015]

So I will have to pay for the ability to buy softwares? Sorta like having to pay for iTunes in order to buy music? That's not cool.

[osirisX]

So I will have to pay for the ability to buy softwares? Sorta like having to pay for iTunes in order to buy music? That's not cool.

iPhone owners paid for the cost of getting the iTunes Wi-Fi store in 1.1.1 via monthly fees that they pay. They will once again pay for the App Store. The only difference for us touch owners is that the cost is more obvious.

[BigDaddy5]

iPhone owners paid for the cost of getting the iTunes Wi-Fi store in 1.1.1 via monthly fees that they pay. They will once again pay for the App Store. The only difference for us touch owners is that the cost is more obvious.

Now there's someone who gets it!

I figure there's two ways to look at it. Well, 3 really.

1) iPhone users pay a monthly fee, so we get updates regularly as part of that fee. Touch users do not, so they have a separate fee for each update, since ours is already "built in" our montly fee.

2) iPhone users were promised from the get-go that we would be receiving regular updates, Touch users were not. They are therefore getting a "new" product each time, since updates were not promised and these special updates contain features not previously earmarked for the Touch

3) It's not fair, iPhone users don't have a separate fee, why do I? If you fall into this category, then you will constantly be upset with Apple.

[neufuse Veteran]

Now there's someone who gets it!

I figure there's two ways to look at it. Well, 3 really.

1) iPhone users pay a monthly fee, so we get updates regularly as part of that fee. Touch users do not, so they have a separate fee for each update, since ours is already "built in" our montly fee.

2) iPhone users were promised from the get-go that we would be receiving regular updates, Touch users were not. They are therefore getting a "new" product each time, since updates were not promised and these special updates contain features not previously earmarked for the Touch

3) It's not fair, iPhone users don't have a separate fee, why do I? If you fall into this category, then you will constantly be upset with Apple.

Contrast this to Windows Mobile devices... people cry and whine when MS releases an update that cost $15 or $20 to get the ROM upgrade for it from your OEM developer... same idea... you pay for updates

[Lqv2015]

By updates, you mean bug fixes right?

[BigDaddy5]

By updates, you mean bug fixes right?

If by bug fixes, you mean free updates, then yes. Only 2 updates have cost Touch users anything, and that was the update that added WiFi based positioning, iphone apps, and a few other new features. The second is this 2.0 update, again adding a whole host of new features. All the bug-fix updates have been free.

Contrast this to Windows Mobile devices... people cry and whine when MS releases an update that cost $15 or $20 to get the ROM upgrade for it from your OEM developer... same idea... you pay for updates

Bingo! I wouldn't say "contrast," since it's the exact same thing.

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

The way he stated, "Apple expected me to pay for the iPhone apps" I assumed he had an iPhone. If I'm wrong, I apologize, but to be honest I think a lot of people are confused in here though.

Regardless, Apple has every right to charge for the update. If people don't like it, then they don't have to buy it.

Isn't it actually because of a law?

If you're not offering the device in a subscription based service, you have to charge for new features (or you have to do vcertain things to your accounting)?

So the iPhone gets new features for free, iPod (which has no subscription service) needs a small fee.

[Cormier6083]

Steve said porn! :o

[Lqv2015]

So Apple gets 30% of the profit to keep the store running plus the additional nominal fee? Doesn't seem right to me.

[osirisX]

The nominal fee and the 30% are separate.

The nominal fee is required by law. iPhone users pay this through their subscription fee. iPod touch is not on a subscription revenue model. Everyone pays, just one is more obvious than the other.

The 30% is the price to have the app in the store, hosted on Apple's servers and advertised through the store on EVERY iPhone and iPod touch running 2.0. This is the same fee Apple charges the record labels to have their music in the iTunes store. Because developers are allowed to charge ANY price they want, they can account for the 30% (Unlike the record labels which are stuck on the price of 99c).

[giga Veteran]

So Apple gets 30% of the profit to keep the store running plus the additional nominal fee? Doesn't seem right to me.

30% revenue, not profit.

This is a substantial move by Apple which has never been done before--this ushers in a whole new era of increasing mobile developers to get the exposure they need. In the context like this, developers for mobile applications usually have to move through the service provider such as ATT to even get listed. I highly doubt most if any service providers allow independent developers to name their price for their software. (or even be free for that matter)

A quote from Steve Jobs at the very end of the press Q&A today, after being asked whether phone carriers like AT&T will get a share of the revenue from the App Store: "We have great relationships with our carriers, and apple's responsible for the software on the phone, so we define the software, we distribute the apps, you have an iTunes account with a credit card, and really, this is our program, and we're running it." Do the carriers get a revenue share? "We're not going to get into details, but generally we like to see the revenue flow the other direction."

The exposure that an indie dev's application now gets will be substantial through the App Store--we're talking every iPhone user that's able to browse and buy/download your application directly. You can account that 30% of revenue sales they take for factoring in hosting/marketing/fees that would otherwise be required if you opted to showcase your application yourself.

Overall, this is a win/win/win solution for Apple, developers, and end users. Apple will inspect the software submitted in order to correct for bad code to maintain a consistent and stable platform. (stability, maliciousness, etc) Applications may only use Published APIs in the manner prescribed by Apple and must not use or call any unpublished or private APIs.

Developers can have the freedom to name their prices and get the exposure they need through the App Store. And the end user gets the best of both with a large variety of great apps at single tap of your App Store icon.

[qdave]

the best thing about this was Spore :D

and exchange support.

[osirisX]

Apple needs to stop obsessing over the Calculator icon: