AltecXP Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 AIM and the Delivery widget are free on OS X, but not on the iPhone. In fact they are $3 each. I don't really understand that logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PyX Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 It has to be the developer that has no logic, not the iPhone, not Apple. The developer chooses a price that ends with $.99 and sends his request to Apple and Apple approves or rejects. It sucks that some IM applications on the iPhone are indeed not free... I'm not paying for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussiefloyd_fan Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 well the esktop version is written by the actual im company and the apps are written different... i use im+ lite small ad but only 1.99 for full version talk with everyone on any client.. even at same time.. even tweet i think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sikh Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 AIM the app is free? I got it for free. I use it for free. Other then that The dev chooses the price not apple Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electric Jolt Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 Sikh: you got the ad version. Because, the sdk sucks. Everything is using their servers. All IM history, all features, everything. Push uses their servers, and because when you switch apps you're still signed in, it's holding your session on their servers. It's not like Windows Phone OS where the code is really on the device, IM history and other stuff is held on the device, on iPhone and iPod Touch it is not. They need to pay for servers cost, bottom line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AltecXP Posted October 18, 2009 Author Share Posted October 18, 2009 My question was not towards apple or the app store bit to developers. There is a free version of aim but is ad supported like the real client. So aim is a bad example. However I still don't understand why a dev would have a free app on one platform and charge on another. If it were $.99 I could understand to support a free counterpart, but $2.99 is where I start to ask "why do I really need this?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the evn show Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 (edited) My question was not towards apple or the app store bit to developers. There is a free version of aim but is ad supported like the real client. So aim is a bad example. However I still don't understand why a dev would have a free app on one platform and charge on another. The desktop AIM client was released under different circumstances. The primary revenue stream for IM clients has been advertising based for over a decade now. It doesn't make sense to try and deviate from it because world+dog has decided that "free with ads is good enough". A handful of geeks (compared to the millions of AIM users) have moved on to better clients but the overwhelming majority of their clients are using the bog-standard advertising laden client. The same is true of MSN messenger, etc. On the iPhone the stream is different. For one: advertising is noticeably less effective for a client like chat clients. You can't very well have people logging in, seeing a banner ad, then sauntering off to safari after they click a link. for two: the desktop application could be considered a loss leader for the portable version (it isn't, but applications for things in the future may be). You get people hooked on say Google Wave based desktop clients for free - when they want to take that connectivity with them on the go, you ask them to pony-up a few bucks for the mobile client. If it were $.99 I could understand to support a free counterpart, but $2.99 is where I start to ask "why do I really need this?" Your well within your rights to do that. On the other hand a developer is free to ask "should I really be giving my work away for free?". In some cases there's just no real market for a program on a desktop (either the problems on a mobile phone aren't relevant or there are entrenched competitors that are already free). For example: it doesn't really make sense to try and sell a "neowin application" for mac os x. The site works pretty damn well on the desktop even over a slow connection. On the other hand: I can't really see going back to browsing neowin without a native iphone app. Even the neowin mobile site is glacially slow when compared to a proper application. I'd be willing to pay for a program that made neowin mobile less painful to use and I think maybe other people would too. That's not the case on the desktop so why would I bother trying to sell one there even if I wrote one for OS X / Windows? As for the pricing of $0.99 vs $2.99 some users are just plain worth more than others. For me: I'd rather have 1,000 users paying $1,000 each than I would 1,000,000 users paying $1.00 (or even $2.00 each). Over time and term I'd be much more profitable trying to support 1,000 users than 1,000,000 because my support costs are drastically reduced and it's also much easier to make large changes without upsetting people. Some developers might think that it's not a case of "equal revenue, larger user base" at all. They might be weighing: 1000 users likely to pay $3 each vs 2000 users willing to pay $1 each. Others might think "I worked hard on this: if somebody isn't willing to buy me a pint of beer in exchange for the application then I don't want their cash". The feeling that "I'd rather be have nothing than be insulted with a lowball offer" is probably more common among developers that are making good products vs those that are just out to make a quick buck (see tweetie). Edited October 18, 2009 by evn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osirisX Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 In regards to Delivery Status: It doesn't cost anything to build, test, and publish a widget but it costs $99 to test and publish an iPhone app. It's well within the rights of a developer to recoup that cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the evn show Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 In regards to Delivery Status: It doesn't cost anything to build, test, and publish a widget Maybe if your time and talent is worthless. Sometimes a developer is willing to give that away for one reason or another, other times he or she isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts