From the (indie) developer’s perspective, this stinks. They’ve already paid at least $99 just to participate, and now they have to wait until they make (potentially) hundreds of sales before they see a dime from Apple. Will the high barrier for entry discourage truly good app development? Or will it act like a cover charge to keep out the riffraff?

Gruber over at Daring Fireball has this to say:

If you’re thinking in terms of a couple hundred dollars, your app probably isn’t even going to get listed in the App Store. The App Store isn’t going to be like VersionTracker or MacUpdate, where every piece of junk gets listed as it’s submitted.

I’d say John is correct, but let’s go a little deeper and do some math.  First, let’s figure out what the gross sales need to be before Apple is going to send a single check.  Developers are going to take a 70% cut, so an app has to make a little over 357 dollars gross before the check is cut. Now, all credible reports indicate that the vast majority of iPhone App Store apps are going to be priced at $9.99 or free.  Let’s take that $9.99 price point. At that price it takes a minimum of 36 sales to make the cut. Cut that price in half to $4.99 and you have a whole 72 sales to make the grade.

If you are a developer and you don’t think that you can sell your application for $9.99 and make 36 sales; then I would suggest that you go ahead and delete Xcode form your machine right now. Hell, if you don’t think that you can make 72 sales at $4.99 you’re a loser too. Keep in mind, absolutely nothing is preventing developers from listing their apps as free and avoiding the whole issue.  Hell, go ahead and stick a PayPal donation link on your webpage if you just want a few shekels per download.

Take this as a hint from Apple; when it comes to iPhone development, think big or go home.

Ars Technica provides a better rebuttal of the scientific points that I feel like writing; so I highly suggest that you read that. But I do have some comments I’d like to make.

To start, why, for the love of Ahura Mazda, must every Web 2.0 dork conflate Google with the rest of the gods damned universe. First, Google is an advertising company, nothing more, nothing less. The sooner you nerds realize that everything that comes out of Google Labs is directed at creating a pool of eyes to view those ads, the less disappointed you’ll be when reality comes crashing down. Second, Google’s success is a result of market forces. Take a good look at the bullshit that most economists spew regarding those and you’ll see, “the market” is about as related to actual science as Intelligent Design. Third, I have never seen a credible piece of research that supports the theory that Google’s algorithms are actually better at providing relevant results that anyone else’s. The fact that Google consistently ranks Wikipedia at or near the top of the results for most searches certainly shows that “accuracy” sure as hell ain’t part of the algorithm.

The second thing about Anderson’s piece that draws my ire is, unfortunately, a phenomenon that is as old as recorded history (which is ironic as we’ll see in a minute). This is the fervent belief of the members of each new social or philosophical movement that their particular philosophy or credo, or technical specialty is a) applicable to the world at large, and b) going to supersede all that came before it. You see this all the time in the Web 2.0/Social Media/Free Software communities. Wikipedia will remove the need for traditional, expert compiled, encyclopedias. A crappy laptop with “Free” software will deliver enlightenment to the starving masses of Africa. MySpace/FaceBook/FlavorOfTheMonth will replace the need to meet people in the real world and enable people to connect on an unprecedented global level.

Sorry guys, you’re wrong on all counts. True, there have been moments in history when a new philosophy or technology has actually changed the world. The great experiment in participatory democracy started here in the United States in 1776 is one. The invention of the printing press is another. And, ironically given the piece that started this rant, the elevation of the Scientific Method above superstition during the Enlightenment is another.

Here’s the simple truth for all you nerds out there who think that you’re about to “change the world.” The Internet could be wiped off the face of the planet tomorrow; and the world will trundle along just fine. I know that’s hard to accept, but it’s true. So fucking deal with it.

Addendum:

Well, crap. If I had remembered that this was Chris “The Long Tail Explains Fucking Everything” Anderson I could have stopped there.

If you already own an iPhone (2G) and don’t have a critical need for aGPS or 3G speeds (assuming that you are in a market that supports 3G).  Don’t buy the iPhone 3G, it’s a bad deal.

If you don’t own an iPhone, or you have a crucial need for aGPS or 3G speed (assuming that you are in a market that supports 3G). Buy the iPhone 3G, it’s a good deal.

There, are we all clear? Now go back to speculating on el Jefe’s health; or whatever it is you nerdlingers do when I’m not paying attention.

This is why reason matters. I know that what I’m about to write may offend some of my friends, and I sincerely apologize for that, but it must be said. This is the result of a society that devalues reason and extolls the virtues of blind faith. Sure this time around it was some woo-slinging con-woman making the allegation. But what happens when the allegations come from a pastor who received the information from God? Would the result have been any different? I don’t think it would.

The world we live can only truly be known in the bright light of reason. When we deny reason, and instead put our trust in the shadowy realm of faith, we lose the ability to discern the truth.

Thanks to Crooks and Liars.

I hate to break it to the Googletards, but there is more to the internet and computing that Google.  Some of us have compelling reasons for wanting a competing service.  Here’s just a single one that is a factor for me. Seamless desktop and remote integration.  I’ve been dying for a seamless way to integrate my desktop workflow (iCal, Mail, iLife) with both the web, and with the Windows machines that I have to use at work.  And, before I get a slew of comments pointing out how to integrate with Google’s services, I know about them; I even am currently using some such as BusySync.  But, in the end, they are, to a greater or lesser extent, kludges.  I want something that, in the words of my dark lord Steve Jobs, “just works.”

But that’s the wonderful thing.  If Google is working for you, by all means stay there.  That’s the beauty of it. Competing services that co-exist using open and interoperable standards.  It’s a win for everyone.  Well, everyone but Microsoft.

My view on this is: So what?

I’m betting that iPhones are still gonna fly off the shelves like Marina Sirtis blow-up dolls at a Star Trek convention.  What the vast majority of the blogtards fail to get is, pricing is all about perception.  Why else are the prices “$199″ and “$299″? It’s been shown time and again that consumers latch on the the first digit in the price, not the rest.  Also, a one time savings of two hundred clams is far more of an incentive to many people than a two hundred dollar savings spread over 2 years. I know that my wallet will be screaming slightly less when I pry it open in a few weeks.