chipp at altuit.com
Fri Feb 18 17:55:16 EST 2011
The most interesting point, IMO, is the one Richard alludes to. Most people don't know this, but it's simple to create a website, which runs in iOS Safari, and has a button, PUT THIS WEB APP ON MY IPAD. Pressing the button allows a user to place the web app, including glossy icon, directly on the iPad's desktop.
And by creating such an app, developers gets to:
- Bypass completely the AppStore
- Update the App as quickly and often as they likes
- Access specific API's in iOS
- Keep money for themselves
- Run on multiple platforms, not just iOS.
I suppose if one plays this out to a logical conclusion, assuming Apple doesn't capitulate and maintains it's desire for control, Apple will at some time in the future remove this feature from iOS.
And, just when are we going to see all of this greedy goodness come to the Mac? My guess is sooner than later- but it will be gradual, probably with plenty of Apple fans to cheer them on. For instance, last I checked you can offer a free program in the Mac store, then drive customers to your website to purchase the feature enhanced version. I assume Steve will be changing that soon in a new set of license terms. Seems like Apple changes their mind on licensing about as often as Lindsay Lohan changes hers on staying sober. And both wonder why people make such a big deal. :-)
The other point concerning a monopoly-- Apple right now has THE monopoly on mobile tablets. That much is clear.
My guess is Amazon doesn't mind playing chicken with Apple on this. They can afford to not change Kindle and wait until Apple throws them off iOS, then cry foul and sue Apple, meanwhile offering discounts to iPad customers on Android tablets and Kindles. Heck, they might even try to support a class action lawsuit for those people (like Andre and myself) who don't own a Kindle, yet have dozens of books on our iPad, which we could not then use.
If that comes to pass, Apple will continue to look like a controlling big brother company-- which at some point will take it's toll. Probably soon after Jobs leaves us, as the rumors are the company doesn't have much of a succession plan.
It will be interesting!
CEO, Shafer Walters Group, Inc
On Feb 18, 2011, at 12:27 PM, Richard Gaskin <ambassador at fourthworld.com> wrote:
> Bob Sneidar wrote:
> > I think if Apple maintains it's position they are going to alienate
> > the major developers.
> Agreed, though the major issue here is with content publishers more than developers, and publishers have another option available that can make far more money for them: the web = iOS + the entire rest of the world.
> Rather than spending themselves silly making single-platform apps, they can just go back to the web and get 100% of the world's eyeballs at a much lower cost -- and they keep 100% of all revenues in doing so.
> Earn more, spend less. Makes good business sense for content publishers to blow off the app store entirely.
> > It may be that Apple is not after the major developers anyway, and
> > are thinking about small developers...
> ..of which there are many...
> > who start out selling an app on the store, hit huge success with it...
> ...of which there are very few.
> Last time I saw any stats on this, it looked to me a very long tail: only the top 100 were making serious money, the second 100 making about what most of us make on desktop apps, and all the rest of the 350,000 apps there were earning somewhere between minimum wage and zero.
> > ...and then try to market out of store to avoid paying Apple.
> Even fewer.
> The conflict here is about content publishers, and as long as there is a WWW they have a more profitable option awaiting them. Now that they're no longer as dazzled by the novelty of the iPad, they can settle down and get back to business basics.
> > If the DOJ goes after Apple, it may end up that the people who
> > thought that Apple was going to rule the world can rest easier.
> > I guess in a healthy economy everything eventually balances
> > everything else. I don't understand Antitrust though. I thought
> > that was when multiple companies selling a similar product conspire
> > to fix prices. Wouldn't it fall more under Monopoly?
> Hard to say how that will pan out; there are precendents both ways. I'm no attorney, but the Sherman Act does have a few things to say about price fixing even outside of monopolies.
> Still, I don't imagine this will come to much, as the savvier publishers will just go back to the web and make more money.
> Richard Gaskin
> Fourth World
> LiveCode training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com
> Webzine for LiveCode developers: http://www.LiveCodeJournal.com
> LiveCode Journal blog: http://LiveCodejournal.com/blog.irv
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
More information about the Use-livecode