Apple has piled another brick onto the ramparts of its walled garden: to be eligible for this year's Apple Design Awards, Mac OS X developers must sell their apps through the Mac App Store. "How are apps selected for the Apple Design Awards?" Jobs & Co ask themselves in the ADA FAQ. Their answer: "iPhone, iPad, and Mac apps on …
"just another brick in the wall"
The more I look into Apple products, the company, and their methods, the happier I am that I have limited my use of them to one iPod Touch ... now only used for watching movies on long flights.
Hubris is going to be the death of the company because in the end, it doesn't matter how good your products are (and the apple products are very well designed); what matters is does anyone want to buy them which is strongly influenced by the way that they treat their customers.
Missing the point
Apple are very clever. 99% of their dicking around has no impact on 99% of their customers. Its the other members if it's ecosystem that Apple treat like crap. Very few customers give a damn about the walled garden as they are happy with their fart apps etc.
The only possible exception is the 30% subscription fiasco where if the various suppliers impacted start a marketing campaign telling their subscribers why they cannot have their product 30% cheaper. However I cannot see this happening - they don't have the bottle for a protracted fight with Apple with the attendant exclusion from the App store. In the long run Apple may price themselves out of the Market bur I would expect them to drop the % if any competition or resistance appears.
treat their customers?
Apple thinks their customers are fools and idiots. And hope they are right.
Apple thinks customers are property of the company and are to be manipulated. And many are.
What is amazing is the stupidity of Apple customers. I can understand how and why Apple thinks it must control them. But, the interests of consumers are very different than the interests of a single company. Very different.
Consumers want choice and freedom. Consumers want lower prices. Apple employees give themselves away every time they claim to be a consumer but only represent the views of Apple. It is a dead giveaway.
Consumers do not want a walled garden at all. They want choice. They want the choice to visit any garden available. They want the choice to buy an app from Amazon. They want the choice to buy a subscription through their device without it being highly over priced just because Apple insists upon a huge cut off the top (without contributing any value).
It is worse than hubris. It is disrespect of the customer.
if only their products weren't so good.....
As a fully paid up member of the apple fanboy club, it saddens me to see them going down this road with the mac.
As the first commentator said, hubris should be the death of them, but your average mac owner is not going to give a monkeys about this.
I can't see myself becoming a windows user any time soon, but i can certainly see my next phone being an android one.
A Wishin' and a Hopin'
I have an iphone 3G which I used for about a year. Then I got a (work provided) iphone 4 to test viablity as a business phone. Backroom antics from Jobs and Co aside, the iphones are without a doubt, and by a wide margin, the best phones I've ever had.
However, I do prefer free software and have been a Linux user for a decade. I hardly ever touch Windows (itunes and the occasional game) and I can't stand OS/X. I am not an apple fanboi by any stretch
Recenty, I was given the chance to test a Samsung Galaxy Android phone. After reading the Android/iOS fanboi wars on el reg I was interested to use 'droid myself so I leapt at the chance. I would love that my next phone not be an apple one due to the increasing amounts of silliness coming from Cupertino and the feeling of increasing lockin' I'm getting. I left MS for that reason and I don't like the prospect of doing it again with apple.
Unfortunately, the Android implementation by Samsung is less than impressive. Navigation is unintuitive. When I first got my iphone I knew nothing about it but was able to easily navigate around and figure it out without effort.
On (Samsungs version of) Android, things that seemed obvious on iOS are much more arcane and I just feel like I have to work harder to do everything the first couple of times I try.
For example, simply answering a call. On both phones, when you receive a call you get red and green "buttons" on the screen. On iphone, you touch the green button to answer. It is obvious. On Android, I missed two calls while attempting to press the green button. It turns out you need to *swipe* the button across the screen to a small green dot that is next to the red button. WTF? I accept that this is an "improvement" made by Samsung and is not normal Android behaviour but if I were Joe Sixpack I wouldnt understand that distinction and would probably ascribe it to being the general crapness of android.
I couldn't get wireless to work at home at all. I can connect to the AP but can't browse the 'net. I downloaded an app from the android market to query the TCP/IP lease (over 3G) and can see that I have successfully obtained a DHCP lease, the gateway and DNS settings are correct yet I cannot access the internet. I downloaded a ping app and discover that I can ping hosts on my LAN, but nothing out on the 'net. Even by raw IP address. My iphone works on the same wireless network perfectly. I cannot explain this. It could be an routing issue due to my work telco provider giving me a 10.n.n.n address on 3G as I also use 10.n.n.n. at home. The fact that the phone has two 10.n.n.n addresses may be confusing it. Further investigation is required
I like the idea that I can tether to the android phone and set it up as a wifi access point. I really want it to be better (or even as good) as iOS so I can get off the iphone for good. Hopefully other Android phones haven't been ballsed up quite as badly as this Samsung effort. Have to see if I can find a HTC to play with.
I have resisted the idea of buying a tablet because I don't want to buy an ipad. I really want to get an android one. Unfortunately, every time an article comes along about the latest new ipad killer from some idiotic pc manufacturer I find that the so called ipad killer is let down by being over priced and generally a bit crap. I continue to wait but don't have a lot of faith in the PC brigade. I don't know why they can't get their acts together, I really don't.
Finally, there is the subject of accessories. Despite the proprietary nature of the iProducts, it seems that I can go into any high street retailer and select from an almost dizzying array of iProduct accessories. Docks of all shapes and sizes, slip on covers, car mounts, stick on screen protectors, for christ sakes even cars come these days with ipod docks built in. The problem is, due to the proprietary apple connector these items only work with iProducts. Buying a few of these gadgets then serves to lock the user in to apple products so when it comes time to buy a new phone you think "Well I already have a speaker dock for an iphone I'll have to get another iphone or else it'll need to be chucked in the bin"
This is a bad thing.
The problem is that products in the fragmented Android market don't have anywhere near the traction of the iProducts so there are few if any accessories available and if there were, then they would be specific to the particular product (eg Samsung Galaxy i9000). Knowing Samsung, the odds are that when the new Galaxy phone comes along it will be different and wouldn't work with the old accessories anyway. I realise that this happens a bit with apple too, older ipods don't work with newer accessories and older iPod accessories don't work with iphones etc but by and large there is a reasonable amount of cross product compatibility going on that companies like Samsung and LG can only dream of.
If these PC and old school phone manufacturers want to play in this market they simply have to get together and create an "open", apple style dock connector (plain USB is simply not enough) that they all use. They need to pay proper attention to interoperability. They will also initially need to start producing some accessories themselves to seed the market until they get enough traction for all the accessories manufacturers to take note and start making stuff too. Then they need to stick with it, and not force people to repurchase things like speaker docks every time they change phones. Until this happens then apple will continue to dominate them.
I really wish they would get their act together but I see no signs of it happening yet. I want a decent tablet and android phone but for now I can't see myself getting rid of the iphone.
I'll agree with the need for a standardized docking connector. At a bare minimum, my smart phone has to have a USB connector and a standard headphone jack. I got burned once with a Samsung proprietary connector and the option of buying only their headset if I wanted to listen to my music.
The other problem with Apple is the apple chip that's required in devices to make their product work with it. Apple is going to screw themselves when people can't use their little gadgets for newer Apple products. It's already happening, since the iPhone 4 won't work with some of the older chips properly. Get rid of the chip, iTunes, allow me to replace the battery myself and let the phone run on all networks and I'd buy one of these damn things (because they really are straight forward / easy as hell to use). Otherwise, I'll stick with learning my smart phone's interface in exchange for compatibility.
Apple better watch out for viral predictions
"Windows Phone to eclipse iPhone sales by 2015 - forecast" by IDC and others. Hopefully, Apple stays ahead of ms. We need Apple to keep a fire under Android so Google doesn't get lax.
Phew, that was close!
What a relief. There is absolutely no chance of me getting an award then. Who wants to be publicly outed for drinking the coolaid?
Shame on them....
Jobs is clearly going to take this to an end-to-end apple product with profit at each and every turn. While I appreciate they are a business, like any other, and out to make profit (nothing wrong with that!) I do think they are being 'a bit mean' to developers and software houses. Its not the 30% that is the problem, its the total cutting off from your own infrastructure and customers. Its hard to market an app, if you can't see where your marketing is working and where its not. And while you *may* get a good listing in the app store, you also may get ignored. So its too much luck based, and that is a bad business model.
Apple need to make the playing field a bit more level.
And the reason this works is the user doesn't care. The techies do, the software companies do, but the customers don't. Unless the software companies start to ditch osx and get into bed with a linux vendor (ubuntu, redhat) at the same time and make the slow but sure transition to something else some will ultimately die.
And I imagine apple have already penciled in the date for when 'app store only' apps can be installed / access 100% of the underlying system.
Looks like my current mac will be my last. Shame, I was going to get one for the wife this year....
Obviously the Apple core is composed of masochists. That being the case, non masochists will never understand them. But given the financial successes Apple has had lately, and knowing that success comes only from the sale of it products, I come to the conclusion the fanbois love things the way they are and want more of the same. Why ask why?
and in other news
the golgafrincham fleet departs earth taking all the iTards with it, leaving planet earth free of jobsian-fondle-slab-toting goatee-bearded rollneck-sweatered apple lovers.
How about you take those blinkers off for a minute there bub?
My old man, 72 years old, a Mac owner, despises iPads and iPhones, may have owned a turtleneck many, many moons ago, certainly never grown a beard in his life.
My wife, Mac owner, owns an iPhone, never worn khaki, certainly never had a beard, thinks Jobs a complete arsehole.
Me, Mac owner, last garment I bought was a Bloodbath zip-up hoodie i've wanted for ages. Never grown a beard, never be seen dead in a turtle-neck. Jobs is a complete tosspot, a rich, businessman with as much charisma as a 4 week old banana skin at bottom of a rubbish bin.
My two good mates at my photography club, one aged 58 and the other and ex-punk aged 46, again no beards, maybe a turtleneck ages ago, both think Jobs is bearable but couldn't give a toss that much to really care.
You see it's possible to like some tech without having to "drink the Koolaid" or fawn over the creators of the tech, just use the tech as a tool. These are tools to get jobs done, nothing more, nothing less, just devices to get things done. I think Mac's look freaking stupid if you really want know, I just like OSX and find it works well for my photography, which apart fom the odd email and browsing I do, is what my Mac is used for.
Oh and I have workd as a Solaris systems admin for the last 15 years too! So why not open up your said lilttle blinkered eyes and take a look at the wider picture instead of getting your info from anti-Apple forums.
It's a simple choice..
..if you don't like Apple don't buy their products, if you don't like the way the App Store is run don't sell your apps through it. Not exactly a hard choice is it? If Apple want to give awards out to developers who use their store that's up to them. Also why is it that people insist on whining about the 30%? The App Store has inspired a new generation of coders and designers by leveling the playing field and made it possible for anyone to create and market an application to the masses. It is a revolution and it is ending the monopolistic and innovation stifling business practices of companies like Adobe. Ok, Apple are making a huge wedge of cash in the process and not everyone is happy with the way certain apps are rejected, but as a famous man once said “You can’t please all of the people all of the time”. If you don't like Apple and the way they do business buy an Android phone and a Windows 7 PC and shut the f**k up, as it's getting beyond boring.
My apologies to the late Mr. Adams.
+ 1 stopping monopolistic practices of Adobe.
- 10,000 promoting monopolistic ABUSES of Apple.
Adobe has never, to my knowledge, used any of it's monopolies to anti-competitively work their way into new markets to this degree. Infact, the things that Adobe has monopolies in, namely cross-platform document exchange and client-side web-applets, they have opened specifications for. How does Apple compare? Apple makes every effort to prevent you from installing any applet that is not from their store on your phone, furthermore, they use the monopoly on iPhone application delivery to force all iPhone developers to use (and pay yearly) for their development package. How about this one, they are useing the same monopoly position to prevent delivery of paid content to an iPhone without them getting a cut. I'm sure Mr. Gates is green with envy at that racket.
That's not monopolistic behaviour you ass!
It'd be "anti-competitive" if and when the iPhone/Mac was the dominant product in that market place, and a you nerds like to tell us, endlessly, they are far from that. So make up your mind, either they are a dominant monopoly holding anti-trust monster OR they have a small market share, it factually and legally cannot be both you utter boob!
"Infact[sic], the things that Adobe has monopolies in, namely cross-platform document exchange and client-side web-applets, they have opened specifications for. How does Apple compare?" Webkit? CUPS? LLVM and Clang seem to be interesting projects. Oh and the kernel for both Mac OSX and iOS,the Xnu Kernel, is completely open too. As for the rest of your Nerd-rage argument. Their toy their rules. Don't like it? Don't play? tell you what though, it's a lucrative game!
not buying Apple is not enough
It is easy to suggest that not buying an Apple product is all you need to do.
But, that is wrong. And incorrect.
Apple's insistence that media subscriptions not be sold for less than offered via Apple affects ALL CONSUMERS. Not buying an Apple product does nothing.
Apple illegally insists that media companies charge the same high price even on their own web site. And they do not allow apps that only give a URL.
In other words, Apple insists that all consumers pay a higher price just so Apple can rake off their 30% cut from Apple sales. That is illegal but that does not concern Apple.
Apple just wants it's 30% cut (for doing nothing) and it wants to illegally prevent price competition from Amazon and Android markets at the same time.
Apple needs to be sued to protect consumers. And most likely will be. Amazon must certainly sue to exercise its right to sell Apple apps. Same with all third parties. Google may not care to sell Apple apps. But, a number of third parties do have the legal right to do so. Of course, Apple insists that only it has the right to sell to Apple customers. After all they are owned.
The FTC or the DOJ need to sue Apple in order to protect consumers. Apple customers. And non-Apple customers. Both are being harmed by Apple's illegal practices.
Even Apple developers are being restricted. There is no doubt that many of them would be better off having multiple markets through which to sell their apps. There is no question about that. And many companies should have and do have the right to sell apps directly without being restricted by Apple.
Those restrictions do not benefit consumers. Consumers ALL want the choice to buy from any source. All consumers want the choice to buy as they see fit and not have some jerkheads decide for them.
Apple employees give themselves away as they claim to be “consumers” but only speak the company line. They are NOT consumers.
Both developers and consumers need to be released from the restrictive policies of Apple. Even non-Apple customers are being harmed by forcing higher prices for all.
It is monopolistic behavior.
You do not have to have a monopoly to act like a monopolist.
Clearly Apple acts like a monopolist. Just look at their policies. You can not do this. You can not do that. If you deal with us you have to give up your basic rights elsewhere. You have to pay us a 40% cut for nothing added. And you have to raise your price for all consumers.
If that is not monopolistic behavior, nothing is.
Now, the truth may remain that if a company not having monopoly power acts that way, they will lose in the marketplace. They will fail to continue to be competitive. And in time, they will lose their power. Or, they will only be able to sell to stupid consumers who have more money than brains.
The problem is that Apple is clearly more restrictive than just about any company including Microsoft. It restricts consumers that buy Apple products. And it restricts developers who hope to sell products or services to Apple users.
Apple hopes to make more money off of the idiots that pick Apple devices.
And that would be fine if they did not also insist upon raising the price for everyone whether or not they are an Apple customer. Forcing media subscriptions to cost the same high price even through other channels is harmful to non-Apple customers as well.
If you can subscribe to the New York Times through Apple, you also MUST pay the same high price everywhere else. So no matter what channel you use, you pay a higher subscription fee. Apple insists upon its 30% cut (for doing nothing) and forces all other channels to charge the same high price.
Or, you can be blocked from Apple customers. A protection racket if there ever was on. Pay Apple money or stay away from customers owned by Apple.
And that helps protect Apple monopoly power in iTunes. Which makes it illegal again.
There is no question that Apple wants to keep customers ignorant about music subscriptions services not sold by them. So, just force them to pay the 30% cut or stay away from Apple customers. That is clearly a violation of the antitrust laws.
So having monopoly power and abusing it is one thing. But, acting like you are a monopoly does not require such power. It only requires that you be a jerk. And Apple is run by a bunch of jerks. There is no question about that.
The so-called walled garden is designed to keep consumers ignorant and competitors away illegally.
I just love ACs....
Webkit: A fork of KHTML, LGPL was a requirement as a derivative work.
CUPS: Predates Apple. (yes they hired michael sweet, but this is still just them using an existing project)
LLVM: An existing project from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign/National Center for Supercomputing Applications. Compliance with the UofI/NCSA license was a requirement as a derivative work.
Clang: This is the ONLY thing in this list that Apple actually deserves any credit for, but even so, this is just a ObjC front-end for LLVM. Without LLVM, It wouldn't even exist, let alone be under the same license.
Darwin/XNU: fork of Mach and BSD, with a little CDDL licensed code from SUN. While the BSD and CMU licenses would have permitted re-privatizing this code, It would have been largely pointless at the time (because Apple's value-add isn't the kernel or commandline userspace). CDDL code, of course, must remain CDDL.
As to the rest of your post, Apple most assuredly has a monopoly on iPhone app distribution. And no, when they sell the toy to a consumer, it becomes the CONSUMER'S toy, that is what "selling" is.
All of what you say is true, however as an avid FreeBSD user (all my desktops, servers and laptops run it - even my TV box runs it), I can tell you that Apple do push back a lot of code willingly, and sponsor initiatives like TrustedBSD, which they folded into OS x and provide regular updates for.
In BSD land we have slight issues with GPL code - we don't as a rule like it, and prefer our code to be BSD licensed, or a comparable license. A lot of companies/users that contribute to FreeBSD also won't touch GPL 3 with a long pointy stick, so the last gcc version we can use is around 4.2.1, so moving to a new compiler was important.
clang/llvm was an academic project that has rapidly matured, thanks to Apple's contributions (amongst many, many others).
BTW, 'compliance with UofI/NCSA licesne' means - don't sue us if it breaks, and say we wrote it. There is no requirement for Apple to contribute back changes they make to llvm/clang.
The monopolies point is interesting though. In the US, you used to only be able to get 'genuine GM' parts for your GM car. This was found to be monopolistic, and GM were no longer allowed to get injunctions against after market parts manufacturers. I would have thought the same argument could be used against Apple, if consumer activists were interested.
One Question re this award...
Who the fuck cares?
That is all.
You are right...
Realistically only consumers and developers of Apple software would really care, or at least you'd think...
consumers care too
It is not just the developers that are harmed here.
Consumers are also denied the right to buy non-Apple applications. Or, simply applications not previously approved by Apple.
Here is a STUPID review guideline in the appstore
"11.3 Enemies" within the context of a game cannot solely target a specific race, culture, a real government or corporation, or any other real entity""
So, if someone wrote a game about the conflict in Vietnam, and the Western troops are attacking the Viet Cong, wouldn't that identify or target a specific race AND culture AND government?"
Substitute other countries and cultures, if you will
Is that guideline really enforced? Is apple playing revisionist historian? Or, are combat games banned in the istore/itunz stoore uummm App Store?
Apps that require license keys or implement their own copy protection will be rejected"
Huh? I don't know how the app store works, but how does a developer ensure someone doesn't illicitly duplicate and share an app? Does apple provide that service?
Apps with metadata that mentions the name of any other computer platform will be rejected"
What about in body of the app, or in any user guide/instructions/how-to? Can a developer say, "Our app also works on Linux running kernels 220.127.116.11 and Windows versin 7.xxx and SparcStation version X?"
Apps with app icons and screenshots that do not adhere to the 4+ age rating will be rejected"
I guess a developer is not allowed to put a ratings-and-password-for-adult-owners-of-device module in. As many kids as i see letting their toddlers play with the phone, apple is taking on the role of parent, I guess. IS apple "enchildening" its customers?
not that I am defending the rules.. but
"11.3 Enemies" - So, if someone wrote a game about the conflict in Vietnam, and the Western troops are attacking the Viet Cong, wouldn't that identify or target a specific race AND culture AND government?"
Er, the 'Viet Cong' are not a 'real' (as of the present day) government.
I played Castle Wolfenstein as a free download from the app store (the enemys are Nazi's) so I doubt this rule has a lot of applicablity. I suspect you would only fail this test, if you had a game in which you get to kill Steve Jobs repeatedly.
>Is that guideline really enforced? Is apple playing revisionist historian? Or, are combat games >banned in the istore/itunz stoore uummm App Store?
Take a look. The answer is no, its not really enforced other than (I assume) extreme cases with individuals, company trademarks, current affairs etc.
"2.19 Apps that require license keys or implement their own copy protection will be rejected"
>Huh? I don't know how the app store works, but how does a developer ensure someone >doesn't illicitly duplicate and share an app? Does apple provide that service?
You should probably have stopped after confessing that you don't know how the app store works. Yes Apple provides quite a lot of useful services for there 30% cut including copy protection - and its a good thing, better than lots of developers trying to roll there own & failing to do anything other than making life difficult..
"3.1 Apps with metadata that mentions the name of any other computer platform will be rejected"
>What about in body of the app, or in any user guide/instructions/how-to? Can a developer say, >"Our app also works on Linux running kernels 18.104.22.168 and Windows versin 7.xxx and >SparcStation version X?"
and basically, I can't imagine sticking anything but the standard meta-data into a iOS app. It makes so much more sense than other platforms where you have to install the correct 32/64bit version for platform XYZ.
"3.6 Apps with app icons and screenshots that do not adhere to the 4+ age rating will be rejected"
>I guess a developer is not allowed to put a ratings-and-password-for-adult-owners-of-device >module in. As many kids as i see letting their toddlers play with the phone, apple is taking on >the role of parent, I guess. IS apple "enchildening" its customers?
Arrgh. They are talking about the app icons and screenshots, not the applications.
That just means that when prudes or 3yr olds are browsing the app store, they don't get to see anything good. You can have some smut in the app (though I think Apple are too restrictive on this) and let your kids see it if you are so inclined, but as for the app store.. again makes sense
Sorry to go all grammar nazi on your arse but
The word you are looking for (several times) is "their" not "there"
Sorry, pet peeve of mine
I'm sorry, but I fail to see what the fuck this has to do with Apple's Design awards for software?
all about the attitude
It is all about the Apple attitude.
It is Apple's policy to restrict both developers and consumers from the benefit of any non-Apple product or service. Unless, of course, Apple gets paid 30% off the top for doing nothing.
Reason 152 why you wont see me touch anything from that company with a 10 foot pole
Pic related, Steve Jobs
I'm hoping you grow out of posting them by about number 170
What? That they are presenting awards to apps available in their own their own respective stores? Grow up, son. You'll be complaining that Windows or Linux apps aren't up for consideration next! Let's, for just one minute, engage our thinking glands and try to suss out what the awards *really* are about. Apple, a company renowned for it's marketing, are presenting awards to software that is available through it's own marketplace...
I feel (and read) your pain.
I was with you right up to the 'The App Store has inspired a new generation of coders and designers by leveling the playing field and made it possible for anyone to create and market an application to the masses'
Massive fail I'm afraid, there has long been a huge base of free/share/trialware out there for all platforms. All Apple have done with their store is put it all in one place (provided its approved) and raked their cut. Cnet and many others have equally huge amounts of software available but dont try to take a percentage if a user pays to register a program.
'the monopolistic and innovation stifling business practices of companies like Adobe'
That actually sounds like Apples business practices to me !
No I dont like the modern Apple and I wont buy their products but I used to admire them. Not any more.
I've been using computers for the past 25-odd years. I've encountered a lot of free/share/trialware whilst I used windows.
Most users will never pay any money to a developer of a shareware program (I rarely have, UltraEdit32 excepted*).
Trialware programs are often easily 'cracked', or registered using a known key. A prime example of this would be winrar, which probably has 0.01% legitimately using it.
When Apple opened the iphone app store, a lot of developers producing this sort of content jumped on it. With the app store, developers get paid if the users use their apps. No messing. It really was a revelation for one man band developers.
The cost of this is the 30%. For that, you get decent copy protection, revenue collection services, hosted distribution infrastructure, and a captive audience. For small developers, this is a real deal. For a massive company like Adobe, wanting to sell the latest version of Photoshop, where they have already invested significant money into these areas, its a shitty deal.
Trying to argue that the app store has not encouraged a generation of small, independent software developers is like arguing that the Earth is flat.
* and even then I had second thoughts, the author is some religous nut
two types of apple developer
Those that got invited to the walled garden and those that are now developing for Android!!!!
(got a galaxy tab yesterday and after my iphone its so FREEEEEEEE - the first thing i did; download californication and usb'd it to the tab and then watched it.... did apple fix that for you with the new iPad or is that a reason to spring for the iPad3 when it comes out exactly 12 months from now)
Some types of legitimate Mac apps are outside the walled garden
In 2009 the audio plugin market was worth US$ 20 million annually (according to NAMM), and Mac sales accounted for a significant percentage of that due to the Mac's historical association with all things creative.
Unfortunately for us the Mac App Store guidelines specifically prohibit any software that installs to shared folders, well, like audio plugins do.
The App Store might be a godsend to one-man-band businesses but not to one decent sized sector chock full on one-man-band businesses...
it is all about illegal restrictions
It is all about Apple's illegal restrictions.
Unless you pay the 30% cut off the top.
It is called "protection money". Money you pay not to be restricted.
This guy is blatantly a troll.
What were those Terms and Conditions again?
I may be mis-understanding, but surely that just means everything is as it was for businesses that sell plugins. You can't sell on the app store, but neither can your competitors.
Or does the way apps are bundled on the app store mean that you cannot add a plugin sold outside of the app store to an app bought from the app store? If so, I feel your pain.
we had some kind of powerful solider to oppose the tyrant, some unstoppable engine that could stand up for our freedom. A machine or a robot, perfectly engineered to fight but with the human element.... maybe.... some kind of android.
Azathoth on a bike, what a non-issue.
(Beard, Winderz user & Solaris Admin, Samsung phone C/W crap, stupid, beyond retarded GUI interface, only exposure to macs = repairing Brother-In-Law's G4 and found out after listening to years of Pro Mac agitprop that it was an unmitigated PIECE OF JUNK from it's crappy half-finished GUI to it's over-priced, under-protected electronics).
Buy what computer stuff you want shall be the whole of the law. It's your money.
Just don't try and talk it up in front of me any more.
- 'Kim Kardashian snaps naked selfies with a BLACKBERRY'. *Twitterati gasps*
- Crawling from the Wreckage THE DEATH OF ECONOMICS: Aircraft design vs flat-lining financial models
- Pics Facebook's Oculus unveils 360-degree VR head tracking Crescent Bay prototype
- Bargain basement iPhone shoppers BEWARE! eBay exposes users to phishing vuln
- Google+ GOING, GOING ... ? Newbie Gmailers no longer forced into mandatory ID slurp