I knew about the 60/40 split but I'm thinkin in terms of ad revenue...if there was any at all to begin with for developers. For instance, if a developer put out a free app but put in ads to recoup the "loss", did they get paid by the sponsors/buyers of the ad (and how much?) or did Apple pay them to put the ads in there?
I believe they were paid by the sponsors... don't know how much, I think that would be between the developer and the sponsor. I don't remember Apple saying anything about Ads and how much a developer could get for Ads, etc. I don't think Apple paid them to put the ads there.
Most of the ads I've seen in free apps have been google ads, so I'm guessing the developers were paid about the same as google ads placed on websites. And I would think that developers would still have the option of using what they have been using before if they want to, this just give them an option that is built into the API and can support much more robust ads.
No Multitasking for 3G? Time to give Steve Jobs the BIG middle finger. You're not going to fool me into buying your product ever again. How about this Steve Jobs? Why not ship your version without Multitask or Flash but give the people an option to install Flash or Multitask on their device like an app?
http://gizmodo.com/5512656/how-multitasking-works-in-the-new-iphone-os?skyline=true&s=i Read that. One thing I can tell you is that there is the thing at the bottom which tells you what apps will be running. And you switch between those apps, I think that is an advantage over the backgrounder. All the backgrounder really is is something that doesn't close the app fully but I'm not sure if you can receive calls from Skype for example if you were to get out off Skype and go to another app.
There's a reason why. IT CAN'T HANDLE IT. You seriously need to think about things... Why wouldn't they put it on the 3G if it could handle it? Hell, they could even charge people $5-$10 if they wanted for the update.... but the fact that it really can't handle it. I've used people's 3G iPhone that was jailbroken with the backgrounder app. The thing doesn't run smooth after you have like 4 things running. It's an option to use Multitasking. They're not going to do Flash as they are with HTML5. That's pretty clear and has been for a while.
How do you know it can't handle it? This is not real multitasking by the way so it shouldn't affect your processing power speed. What's wrong with giving people the option to have it? What's wrong with giving people Flash for the time being until HTML5 come out or if it's ever going to come out. Seems to me they want people to upgrade and buy their next phone with the new OS.
I have no idea if the 3G could handle it or not, but there's a perfectly good reason to not include it even if it could handle it: planned obsolesence. The whole Apple business model is built around getting people to keep buying new versions of the same product. So by not including it in 3G, it encourages 3G users to upgrade to a newer iPhone.
Yeah, I started to think about the marketing strategy, I'm sure that's one of the reasons why. But yeah, this isn't really multitasking so I'm not really blown away by it either. I just got through reading about the multitasking though, so yeah it doesn't use processor speed. About that Flash, they are never going to do it. They were once rivals of Adobe, now that they've committed to HTML5, I can't see them switching. They're stubborn as is right now for putting HTML5 on their device even though not many things support it...
On the official Apple website, it says that OS 4.0 is compatible with iPhone 3G, but what about iPhone 2G? It has the same processor and RAM as the 3G, is there any reason that Apple chose not to release OS 4.0 for the 2G? Or is it just typical Apple BS.
Apple isn't the only one that's doing it. Even Microsoft is doing it with their next Windows Phone 7 and expecting you to buy a phone with 3 buttons.
Of course the os supports multitasking and backgrounder works fine. The problem is it kills battery life.
So ridiculous. Why do people buy this ****? Doesn't most smartphones have this feature already? Whats next? Flash?
Why not charge people for the release of a new OS? It's like telling me to upgrade my whole computer hardwares to be able to run the new OS.
Also I love how they are trying to spin having advertisements on your phone as a positive. iAd- SERIOUSLY? This is supposed to be a great thing for every phone user? You have got to be kidding me.
It's a more robust way of allowing developers to display ADs for the free versions of their apps. I don't really get the problem.
This was an announcement at a Developers conference. Of course they are going to highlight things that developers can make use of.
