My financial investment at the moment is zero, and will likely never go over $400. (the cost to buy an iPod touch for testing, and the cost of releasing free and for-pay versions of the app)
Same here. I just got one when they lowered the prices, and now I'm working on developing apps. I'm still in the 'learning' stage. My biggest concern is what that article points out, the Apple rejection board I hope that putting a lot of time into an app will pay off rather than getting rejected though.
My biggest concern is what that article points out, the Apple rejection board I hope that putting a lot of time into an app will pay off rather than getting rejected though.
Well, looks like I will have to launch "Senior Boob on The Isle of Cleavage" on another platform .
Same here. I just got one when they lowered the prices, and now I'm working on developing apps. I'm still in the 'learning' stage.
I've got all the equipment and still fiddling with the software. I feel like my brain is going to explode with all these different scripting languages and the Flash one is probably my saving grace. But I do have Cocos2D and SIO2. I kept my cost down with just the mini and the iPod, also, resisting the temptation to buy Torque for iPhone or Unity/Shiva.
My financial investment at the moment is zero, and will likely never go over $400. (the cost to buy an iPod touch for testing, and the cost of releasing free and for-pay versions of the app)
you might like to think so, but time is money. don't forget
you might like to think so, but time is money. don't forget
But he's not paying himself, did not take out a loan to cover expenses because he quit his job, or incurring additional expenses other than more electricity used :P. Nor is he taking time off work. When he's done with the project, the out of pocket expenses will still be $400 or so.
I saw an indie blog where the guy calculated his living expenses and food and other things as a cost in his development. When in fact if he's already working a job, then that shit was already being paid for long before he decided to make a game. Just because he decided to spend 6pm to 1am making a game and not wanking to girls puking on each other doesn't change anything.
Every waking moment doesn't equal getting paid. Which makes people believe time = money. When time is much more valuable than money could ever be . We can always find/get more money, but we can never get/acquire more time. He's spending is unallocated time wisely.
you might like to think so, but time is money. don't forget
Oh believe me, I will never forget. You spend almost every free hour staring at a screen and figuring out code...you couldn't forget if you wanted to.
But that time would have probably been spent less productively if I wasn't working on an iPhone App. The app is a bit of a risk in terms of time investment. But I've blown more time on far less deserving, productive, or rewarding tasks. At least with this I'm learning something, and expanding my marketable skill set.
Besides, having my own catalogue of published apps on the iPhone would probably look rather appealing the next time I go in for a job interview. The level of industriousness necessary to bring such a project to completion would go over well with most potential employers.
well, the suits would orgasm if you said you did iFart and would want to know your flatular secrets, but the rest of the devteam wouldn't react so much to an iphone app, there are so many easy means to get one out there, even if you can't code.
but the results can at many times be equal to a coder using poser3d in their projects
I am sure any coders would be happy to make some extra money though I doubt they will need it since they are pretty highly paid right now, right? something like 6 figures.
hmm me thinks me is in the wrong line of work then!
Yes, but it is a matter of how much it sucks. If you look at it from that perspective, the traditional retail chain is pure crap. (publisher takes most of your profit, distribution takes a cut, retail takes a cut, extra cost per unit for packaging)
On iTunes App Store, Apple takes a 30% cut of your sales. That's a decent chunk, but it is also consistent. Microsoft has clauses where they take a bigger cut if you sell more, and have increased their take so that it is no longer competitive with what Apple is offering. If you sell millions of copies of your app, Apple will still just take 30%. And since Apple is the ONLY middle man in this equation, the remaining 70% is all yours.
70% is a much better take than most major commercial developers get. I guarantee most independent studios who go through the retail distribution system don't get to keep 70% of each sale. Having just one method and outlet for distribution has its advantages, as well as its drawbacks.
Ok, but lets compare this to, oh say, publishing for the google phone or blackberry...
Why people are soo hip on this platform where you are being restricted to what can be published by a middle man who takes part of your earnings anyways... I fail to understand.
Ok, but lets compare this to, oh say, publishing for the google phone or blackberry...
Why people are soo hip on this platform where you are being restricted to what can be published by a middle man who takes part of your earnings anyways... I fail to understand.
It's just like developing for any platform aside PC, try developing for XBLA or PSN and you'll encounter the same thing if not more. It comes with the territory.
How is developing for the Google Phone not like the PC? Its open source and you arent required to go through only one store to get apps. From what I understand, neither for the Blackberry (the apps, not the open-source). I can be wrong on this second part however.
So other than the cost of hardware and software, which is relevant to all. I fail to understand how you can draw the conclusion that these other phone types are the same as any other publishing scheme for a platform where you are required to only have your program through certain outlets versus one of your own choosing?
Does the Google phone have a fixed hardware specification? What is the userbase? Are there any systems in place to prevent piracy? Do all google phones and Blackberries have touch screens, or is there a broader variety in control types?
Choice itself comes at a price. The apple app store is appealing to smaller developers because it means there is less for them to worry about. The go through one retail outlet, and don't have to worry about having their software pirated or how to handle credit card information, etc... It's not the ideal solution. But the ideal solution would involve the developer creating their own digital distribution system. And when you're a small team, that isn't really an option. The fixed nature of the hardware platform makes development easier. The fixed nature of the distribution platform means your potential customers always know where to find your product. If there were multiple outlets, you would have to distribute your software on all of them to reach the broadest market.
How is developing for the Google Phone not like the PC? Its open source and you arent required to go through only one store to get apps. From what I understand, neither for the Blackberry (the apps, not the open-source). I can be wrong on this second part however.
So other than the cost of hardware and software, which is relevant to all. I fail to understand how you can draw the conclusion that these other phone types are the same as any other publishing scheme for a platform where you are required to only have your program through certain outlets versus one of your own choosing?
I guess the comparison to android phones and BB's isn't very good because yeah you don't have as much restriction but not nearly as many people are going to play/view/buy your product. That's why I went with the PSN Xboxlive comparison to iphone. They all have a decent user base that will actually get you exposure but they all come with restrictions.
The android platform is open, but there is no market to support it.
Someone on Toucharcade posted their sale results an app at #1 on the google app store, and they had 50 downloads a day, compared to Apple's 30,000 downloads for an app in the #1 spot.
Does the Google phone have a fixed hardware specification? What is the userbase? Are there any systems in place to prevent piracy? Do all google phones and Blackberries have touch screens, or is there a broader variety in control types?
Choice itself comes at a price. The apple app store is appealing to smaller developers because it means there is less for them to worry about. The go through one retail outlet, and don't have to worry about having their software pirated or how to handle credit card information, etc... It's not the ideal solution. But the ideal solution would involve the developer creating their own digital distribution system. And when you're a small team, that isn't really an option. The fixed nature of the hardware platform makes development easier. The fixed nature of the distribution platform means your potential customers always know where to find your product. If there were multiple outlets, you would have to distribute your software on all of them to reach the broadest market.
And honestly? The iphone is one provider only. Soo are you all saying that you want AT&T? Or are they more blacklist people with unlocked iphones? Or like Rhinokey with just a really expensive handheld. In which case, how can you then even tell if your product will work on theirs since they wont have the latest firmware which yours may need.
Yea, I guess this thread has evolved into something else. ;o)
Also, we are a small team and we have digital distribution (albeit PC stuff), the point is a small team can do such. Your argument is the same given for platforms over PC for game development. Yet, most indies are with PC development versus Consoles. Because your same point can be used against you with the cost involved for the licensing and to be placed in the consoles specific marketplace.
So what Im saying in short, your absolutely right. At the same time, so am I. Its what your goals are for your product. I just believe a indie developer would be more inclined for something where they don't loose soo much control and revenue in the process, with first having to restrict their development beyond ESRB? ratings to what that phone company allows*. You in a way support a monopoly (specific to that platform) where everything is funneled through what the platform developer will only allow.
I guess the comparison to android phones and BB's isn't very good because yeah you don't have as much restriction but not nearly as many people are going to play/view/buy your product. That's why I went with the PSN Xboxlive comparison to iphone. They all have a decent user base that will actually get you exposure but they all come with restrictions.
This might help. In other words the iphone is hot because we assume its hot. Look at its percentage numbers.
According to Modoff, RIM and Apple are taking 35 percent of the industry's operating profits despite only accounting for three percent of all handsets sold worldwide in 2008.
3%! Thats less than say Linux, yet the iphone is all hot to trot with developers supposedly.
Further. Market analysts.
The Google Android mobile operating system currently runs on less than 2 percent of the world's smartphones, but research firm Gartner predicts the platform will grow to 14 percent of the global smartphone market in 2012--beating Apple's iPhone, Windows Mobile and RIM's BlackBerry platforms.
Thank you for those figures, oXYnary. They are certainly telling, and I will definitely give the Android platform some closer inspection. If I can eventually release software for both platforms, that would be an even better solution.
I don't want to go into too much detail, but the app I'm working on is not a game. Also, the nature of the content I'm planning on including makes rejection over censorship highly unlikely. I'm actually pretty stoked about the marketability of what I'm creating, and I think it has a lot of potential for further expansion and iteration. I'm not looking to make millions on a one-hit wonder game. I have a fairly involved plan at work, one that could eventually be expanded to other platforms.
Part of the reason I'm focusing on the iPhone at the moment is BECAUSE its the hot thing. If you are looking to drum up some attention for what you're working on, the iPhone is the platfrom of choice. Movers and shakers tend to favor it, and that means it is easier to get your work in front of them. I agree that it is a bad idea to tie yourself down to a closed platform. But since Apple doesn't insist that you sign over your IP, you are not shackled to their system either.
Also, I don't own an iPhone, nor do I intend to acquire one. I am not a big phone guy, and the extra features of the iPhone are not worth the additional monthly costs. I will be acquiring an iPod touch to test out my app.
Well, and on that same point, you also have the consumer base of iPod users, so it's not JUST phones. The point is to have as many customers accessible to your product.
Replies
you might like to think so, but time is money. don't forget
I saw an indie blog where the guy calculated his living expenses and food and other things as a cost in his development. When in fact if he's already working a job, then that shit was already being paid for long before he decided to make a game. Just because he decided to spend 6pm to 1am making a game and not wanking to girls puking on each other doesn't change anything.
Every waking moment doesn't equal getting paid. Which makes people believe time = money. When time is much more valuable than money could ever be
I think I said that right
Oh believe me, I will never forget. You spend almost every free hour staring at a screen and figuring out code...you couldn't forget if you wanted to.
But that time would have probably been spent less productively if I wasn't working on an iPhone App. The app is a bit of a risk in terms of time investment. But I've blown more time on far less deserving, productive, or rewarding tasks. At least with this I'm learning something, and expanding my marketable skill set.
Besides, having my own catalogue of published apps on the iPhone would probably look rather appealing the next time I go in for a job interview. The level of industriousness necessary to bring such a project to completion would go over well with most potential employers.
but the results can at many times be equal to a coder using poser3d in their projects
I am sure any coders would be happy to make some extra money though I doubt they will need it since they are pretty highly paid right now, right? something like 6 figures.
hmm me thinks me is in the wrong line of work then!
Ok, but lets compare this to, oh say, publishing for the google phone or blackberry...
Why people are soo hip on this platform where you are being restricted to what can be published by a middle man who takes part of your earnings anyways... I fail to understand.
It's just like developing for any platform aside PC, try developing for XBLA or PSN and you'll encounter the same thing if not more. It comes with the territory.
So other than the cost of hardware and software, which is relevant to all. I fail to understand how you can draw the conclusion that these other phone types are the same as any other publishing scheme for a platform where you are required to only have your program through certain outlets versus one of your own choosing?
Choice itself comes at a price. The apple app store is appealing to smaller developers because it means there is less for them to worry about. The go through one retail outlet, and don't have to worry about having their software pirated or how to handle credit card information, etc... It's not the ideal solution. But the ideal solution would involve the developer creating their own digital distribution system. And when you're a small team, that isn't really an option. The fixed nature of the hardware platform makes development easier. The fixed nature of the distribution platform means your potential customers always know where to find your product. If there were multiple outlets, you would have to distribute your software on all of them to reach the broadest market.
I guess the comparison to android phones and BB's isn't very good because yeah you don't have as much restriction but not nearly as many people are going to play/view/buy your product. That's why I went with the PSN Xboxlive comparison to iphone. They all have a decent user base that will actually get you exposure but they all come with restrictions.
Someone on Toucharcade posted their sale results an app at #1 on the google app store, and they had 50 downloads a day, compared to Apple's 30,000 downloads for an app in the #1 spot.
Everything you need to know is here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_%28operating_system%29
(See features)
And honestly? The iphone is one provider only. Soo are you all saying that you want AT&T? Or are they more blacklist people with unlocked iphones? Or like Rhinokey with just a really expensive handheld. In which case, how can you then even tell if your product will work on theirs since they wont have the latest firmware which yours may need.
Yea, I guess this thread has evolved into something else. ;o)
Also, we are a small team and we have digital distribution (albeit PC stuff), the point is a small team can do such. Your argument is the same given for platforms over PC for game development. Yet, most indies are with PC development versus Consoles. Because your same point can be used against you with the cost involved for the licensing and to be placed in the consoles specific marketplace.
So what Im saying in short, your absolutely right. At the same time, so am I. Its what your goals are for your product. I just believe a indie developer would be more inclined for something where they don't loose soo much control and revenue in the process, with first having to restrict their development beyond ESRB? ratings to what that phone company allows*. You in a way support a monopoly (specific to that platform) where everything is funneled through what the platform developer will only allow.
*See NIN program being rejected in example
http://blogs.laweekly.com/westcoastsound/news/nine-inch-nails-iphone-app-rej/
So now Trents screwed because there is no other way to get his program to his consumer base on that platform. I always will be against closed sytems.
This might help. In other words the iphone is hot because we assume its hot. Look at its percentage numbers.
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2009/07/market-share-tiny-profit-share-huge-for-iphone-blackberry.ars
3%! Thats less than say Linux, yet the iphone is all hot to trot with developers supposedly.
Further. Market analysts.
http://asia.cnet.com/reviews/mobilephones/0,39050603,62058512,00.htm
I don't want to go into too much detail, but the app I'm working on is not a game. Also, the nature of the content I'm planning on including makes rejection over censorship highly unlikely. I'm actually pretty stoked about the marketability of what I'm creating, and I think it has a lot of potential for further expansion and iteration. I'm not looking to make millions on a one-hit wonder game. I have a fairly involved plan at work, one that could eventually be expanded to other platforms.
Part of the reason I'm focusing on the iPhone at the moment is BECAUSE its the hot thing. If you are looking to drum up some attention for what you're working on, the iPhone is the platfrom of choice. Movers and shakers tend to favor it, and that means it is easier to get your work in front of them. I agree that it is a bad idea to tie yourself down to a closed platform. But since Apple doesn't insist that you sign over your IP, you are not shackled to their system either.
Also, I don't own an iPhone, nor do I intend to acquire one. I am not a big phone guy, and the extra features of the iPhone are not worth the additional monthly costs. I will be acquiring an iPod touch to test out my app.