Apple Making Developers Pay Up For Any Refunded iPhone Apps?

from the restocking-fees dept

Lucretious points to a Kotaku post claiming that Apple is changing the terms for iPhone developers, such that when users ask for refunds, Apple gives them back the full amount but still demands a 30% fee from the developers. For obvious reasons, this is upsetting developers who worry about getting hit with huge chargeback fees. I would imagine that Apple's response is that if developers make a good enough app, they shouldn't have to worry about refund requests. But, in the meantime, it certainly increases the liability of being an iPhone developer.

Filed Under: developers, iphone, refunds, restocking fee
Companies: apple

Developers Looking To Set Up App Store Alternatives On The iPhone

from the competition-is-good dept

We all know about the somewhat "benevolent dictatorship" position that Apple holds concerning its iPhone App Store -- at times arbitrarily banning apps from the store. This has (reasonably) upset some, who feel that it's not particularly fair that Apple gets to decide what works and what doesn't -- and now a few are even looking to set up alternative app stores, though they'll only work on jailbroken iPhones. The article speculates on whether or not Apple will send its lawyers after these upstarts, noting Apple's decision to file a protest against an attempt to have the Library of Congress make clear that jailbreaking an iPhone does not violate the DMCA. However, if Apple is smart, it makes sense for them not to do so. After all, they make more money from each phone sold -- and increasing the value of the phones by allowing more apps to run on it should only help sell more of the devices.

Filed Under: app store, competition, iphone, walled gardens
Companies: apple

That Was Quick: Amazon Launches Kindle Books For iPhone

from the better-than-lock-in dept

While we've been wondering why publishers would agree to lock themselves into Amazon's ebook system via DRM, one possible dampener was the high price of the Kindle device itself. At $359... you need to read a lot of books to make that a worthwhile purchase. And, plenty of people have been asking whether other platforms -- most notably the iPhone -- might start to eat into the Kindle's market. It might not be quite as nice for reading books, but it's a device people already carry around. So, rather than denying that the competition existed, just weeks after introducing the second generation Kindle, Amazon will now allow Kindle books to be purchased for reading on an iPhone. The process is a little cumbersome, and the experience isn't quite as good, but you have to hand it to Amazon for recognizing that it's better to try to co-opt the competition rather than let it take you over (if only other businesses could learn that same lesson). Yet, if I'm a book publisher -- again, this is a bad sign. It gives Amazon even more power in the market and more leverage in the future. Giving Amazon lock-in via DRM may turn out to be the dumbest move some publishers ever made. If they had focused on open standards then there might be real competition and a lot more interest in ebooks.

Filed Under: ebooks, iphone, kindle
Companies: amazon, apple

Early Warning Signs: iPhone Apps Might Not Be As Popular As Believed

from the people-don't-use-them dept

While the iPhone App Store is being used by some as an example of people willing to pay for software, people might want to wait before declaring the store a complete success. New research is coming out suggesting that many apps -- both paid and unpaid -- don't get much usage after they're purchased. The further out you go, the fewer and fewer apps people use. While this may mean that Apple and some lucky developers are making money from users who spend on apps they don't use, this should actually be an early warning that the App Store and the various apps in there aren't really delivering the value that users are expecting. That doesn't bode well for the long-term sustainability of the system. If people feel they're spending money on apps that don't have much value, they're going to be a lot less likely to come back later.

Filed Under: apps, iphone, popularity

Band Puts All Its Music (Plus More) Into A $3 iPhone App

from the more-experiments dept

The pop band The Presidents of the United States of America have released a special iPhone app that contains all of the music from all of their albums, as well as additional rare and unreleased music and images. The whole thing costs $3 -- which certainly blows the old $1/song model out of the water. It's worth noting that one of the band members is now VP of the software company that made the app... and the band actually owns all the rights to its own music -- so that made all of this much easier. Also, it's a bit unclear how the app works exactly, but it certainly looks like the music is locked (hello, DRM!) inside the app. That's annoying.

There have been a few other bands that have experimented with similar "album in an app" type models before, and it's certainly an experiment worth watching. However, by itself, I'm not sure how scalable the model really is. If other bands do this using different apps, then you have to run each one separately and you lose out on the benefit of a central control system for all your music. And, if it really does involve DRM, then bands may just jump on this and alienate fans yet again. Still, if a "standard" and open way of doing this was established, such that bands could have their own apps easily interoperate, and the music wasn't locked down, you could see some interesting models emerge. For example, imagine getting an app that actually kept you updated on a band? Every time they release a new song or add new artwork, it automatically is added to your collection across different devices. That would be a useful application. Unfortunately, this particular app only seems to be a tiny step in that direction (and due to DRM, perhaps a step in the wrong direction).

Filed Under: drm, interoperability, iphone, music, presidents of the united states of america

A Tale Of Two iPhone Apps... And An Irrational Fear Of Piracy

from the compare-and-contrast dept

Reader Terry writes in to point out a rather amusing contrast between two separate stories on a site about iPhone apps. First, there's a story about the massive success of the iPhone game iShoot (which was just profiled in Wired as well). That game, which is basically a copy of the old Scorched Earth (a personal favorite), used a free "lite" version to convince people to buy a more complete $3 version to the tune of over $600,000 in a single month. It is an example of using "free" to sell something else.

But, as Terry points out, it's rather maddening that the very next post on that same site, repeats without any hint of skepticism, the complaint of another iPhone game developer that thousands of dollars were being lost to "piracy." Of course, the article seems to have no problem assuming every single unauthorized download is a lost sale, never once questioning whether those folks would have bought the game in the first place. It also fails to mention that the only way to get the unauthorized free version is to have a jailbroken iPhone -- which is a very small percentage of iPhones out there. More importantly, though, the first story makes it quite clear that if you build a good game, give people an easy way to try it out for free, they seem more than willing to pay for the app in large quantities. The problem (once again) is not the "piracy." It's not a "loss." The problem is simply the use of a bad business model by the second developer -- and, perhaps, making the game not worth purchasing.

Filed Under: business models, iphone, iphone apps, piracy

Yet Another Patent Infringement Lawsuit Over The iPhone

from the keep-'em-coming dept

Remember back when the iPhone was launched, and Steve Jobs hyped up the 200 patents the company had filed around the concepts in the iPhone? We found that pretty odd, since most of the technology had been seen elsewhere before -- Apple just put it together in a consumer package. And, indeed, all of those patents certainly haven't stopped plenty of other companies from claiming that the iPhone was violating some other patent. And, now we've got another one, as two (related) Scottish companies, Picsel Research and Picsel Technologies, are claiming that Apple violates their patents, and (of course) are whining about the millions of dollars they invested in the technology.

Of course, if Apple had really "stolen" their ideas, don't you think they would have spoken up, say, two years ago when the iPhone was first announced? Now, one of the ridiculous aspects of patent law is that independent invention isn't a defense -- meaning that even though it's quite clear Apple developed its technology independent of Picsel, it doesn't really matter for the sake of the case. But, at the same time, that also means that it's equally meaningless how much Picsel invested in the technology. So, unless they want to allow Apple to point out how much it invested in the same tech (perhaps long before Picsel ever did), it might want to stop the whining about money spent.

Filed Under: iphone, patents
Companies: apple, picsel

Up Next, The Subaru App Store

from the click-click-vroom dept

Mobile-phone makers and operators are falling over themselves trying to launch their own application storefronts following the success of Apple's iPhone App Store. But they're not the only ones: Hughes Telematics, which makes in-car communications and computing systems, says the next generation of its technology, scheduled for release in 2010, will let people install apps in their cars. Ideas being kicked around now include a carbon-footprint calculator and remote-starting and monitoring software. There are lots of interesting possibilities here, but there's one stumbling block: most cars don't come with any ability to connect to the internet, making distribution difficult and limiting the apps' utility. Solving that issue would be huge, and open up a enormous opportunity for all sorts of new apps and features: streaming audio, traffic information, in-car music downloads and so on. Just as other platforms like mobile phones and computers have benefited from the addition of mobile data connectivity, so too will cars.

Filed Under: app store, applications, cars, iphone
Companies: apple, hughes telematics

Author Of iPhone Pirating App Angry That His Own App Was Pirated

from the you're-doing-it-wrong dept

Well, here's an odd one. Gizmodo wrote about the release of Crackulous, an iPhone app for jailbroken iPhones that allowed users to make unauthorized copies of iPhone apps. That, by itself, isn't all that interesting. However, the author of the software then wrote to the Gizmodo author very upset that the Gizmodo story linked not to his original app but (you guessed it) an unauthorized copy of the app. When Gizmodo's Adam Frucci pointed out the irony of this, the guy who created Crackulous said that he needed the link to point to his app because "I need people to support my work... I deserve appreciation." I think someone missed the point. Update: The original post was updated, noting that the guy who wrote in was not, in fact, the original creator of the software.

Filed Under: app, crackulous, iphone, piracy

Analyst Says What We Already Knew: Apple's Multi-Touch Patent Fight Won't Help Its Business

from the in-case-you-didn't-get-it-yet dept

After Palm showed off its new Pre smartphone, including the device's multitouch interface, at the Consumer Electronics Show last month, Apple made some threatening noises about how it would go after anybody who "ripped off" its intellectual property. As always, we didn't see how this would benefit anybody in the marketplace, since competition pays benefits to consumers, and drives participants, even Apple, to continually innovate and improve their products. Now, a wireless industry analyst has called Apple's threats into question. He makes the point that a long, drawn out IP fight won't help Apple's business in the long run: "Building on the company's legacy as one of the greatest innovators in the technology industry may be a smarter business model than taking on the rest of the industry in a battle that may be impossible to win."

His reasoning is twofold: first and most obviously, Apple stands to gain more by competing in the market than competing in the courts. Second, he says that if Apple went ahead with patent suits, it may not be able to win them. He says that it appears that much of Apple's multitouch IP portfolio is based on work from a couple of its employees -- who also were granted a number of multitouch patents while they were employed by the University of Delaware. The University holds those patents, while the analyst also found a lot of potential prior art he says could threaten the Apple patents' validity if they're reviewed. So if Apple realizes the patents may not stand up to a review, it could explain the bluster; but once it's clear the threats are empty, they hold no value. The question now seems to be how long Apple will try to play out the show, and how many resources it will throw at it that would be better spent on developing its products.

Filed Under: iphone, multi-touch, patents, pre
Companies: apple, palm