On Thu, 01 Sep 2011 12:31:24 -0400, Warp wrote:

>   The 100 thousand apps I mentioned are specifically targeted for the
>   iPad
> (iow. they have high-resolution graphics and use the size of the screen
> to their advantage).
> 
>   From those Android apps maybe 100, if even that many, are targeted
> specifically at the tablet you mentioned (or any tablet with similar
> specs).

That's a bit of a straw man argument.  Many app developers for Android 
devices don't "target" anything other than the Android platform.

>   As I said, if you start counting *all* apps that will run on the
>   device,
> the number of apps you can run on the iPad probably increases ten-fold
> (the majority being iPhone apps, of course).
> 
>   The Android side has also one big problem that the Apple side lacks
> basically completely: When you buy an app, you can't be sure that it
> will run properly in your device. You see, Android has the same problem
> as desktop PCs: There are approximately a million different
> "Android-compatible" platforms out there, from numerous different
> manufacturers. Some of them are more powerful, some less powerful.
> Whether the App will work properly in your specific device is a game of
> chance. It certainly doesn't help that the market is flooded with
> low-quality devices made for cheap.
> 
>> (which isn't uncommon in
>> Apple's App Store - look at the way vendors have had to work around
>> Apple's attempts to extort *30%* of content sales with apps distributed
>> through the app store
> 
>   Yeah. How *dare* they try to make a profit? They should offer the app
> store completely for free. After all, they *are* a charity organization,
> they should start acting like one.

That's not what it's about.  It's about the content providers being 
forced to turn over part of their profit for the 'privilege' of having 
their content on Apple devices.

Apple's not exactly poor - you might've noticed that.  It's not "charity" 
when they get part of the profits from the sale of the apps (which is 
reasonable, it's their store).  But in-app purchases are arguably not 
coming from their store.  They're coming from the vendor's store.

I'd love to come up with a way to charge people for stuff that I didn't 
provide them with.  Maybe GM should start charging a fee for everything 
that everyone buys in the grocery store, since without their cars, people 
might not be able to get to the grocery store to buy food - even though 
they have nothing to do with the *food* being sold.

Apple has nothing to do with the book I buy through the Nook app running 
on an iPad.  That's the book author, publisher, and B&N's retail arm.  
Apple's trying to set up a 'toll booth' for apps, and the retailers are 
responding by just pointing their apps to a web interface for the store 
so they can keep prices consistent.  They're reducing the functionality 
in their iOS apps, which actually hurts Apple more IMHO.

Jim

Post a reply to this message