Did Apple Just Lie to the FCC?

As for Sling, I have no idea of their deal, if they even cut one on the iPhone side. I just used that as an example since it looked like the perfect example of a known company, targeting a closed demographic. They might be perfectly happy with their relationship, but that's beyond my knowledge. Just thought I'd throw that out there in case someone wanted to nitpick galore. They are also an example of a firm that sells direct to customers for everything except the one device.

"No, but you appear to be kidding yourself!"

Why is it people are convinced you have to retail through an app-store or similar? The Internet allows marketing directly to customers.... Look at the Sling Mobile Player. $30, direct to Sling, and it's yours. Absolutely no one else was involved in the transaction in a fiduciary sense, except the payment processor.

Everyone who has a SlingBox knows to go to them for software, thus the convenience of an app-store is totally meaningless since the customers know precisely where to go and non-Sling owners are a meaningless demographic. Do you think they *want* to use an external store? Of course not.

There is no confusion on that part. Involving a 3rd party is totally unneeded. Frankly I don't care what percent MSFT charges because no one is forcing me to ever go through their store.

"Well that's great. Just don't ever ask a "shop" or "store" to sell your product. You might be disappointed."

I never would, because none of my products are intended for the general public.

"If you think that developers walk away with 70% of sales from their games after publishers"

Game development is massively different these days. A few large publishers produce almost all the games in-house. These publishers get sweetheart deals based on volume and exclusivity.

Indie developers pretty much don't exist for consoles. I really wouldn't care if they were exploited because that's not my fight. Perhaps I'd be outraged If I owned a game studio.

"Stop being so outraged about things that you don't understand."

Uh huh. Go with that if it makes you feel better.

@Christopher

"And to take 30% off the top?!?! Are you kidding me? "

No, but you appear to be kidding yourself!

As someone else has mentioned, Microsoft and others are following Apple with exactly the same deal for developers. Prior to these developments Handango used to be the first stop for most buyers of mobile apps. Last year Handango increased their cut to to 50%... but don't worry that will drop down to the App Store rate of 30%.... as long as your sales top a million dollars! How do you like them apples?

"I'm not handing 30% of my income over to another firm"

Well that's great. Just don't ever ask a "shop" or "store" to sell your product. You might be disappointed.

"Even the royalties for console development aren't that oppressive."

Are you sure about that?
If you think that developers walk away with 70% of sales from their games after publishers, MSoft, Sony, and Nintendo etc take their cut... then you really don't seem to have a grasp of that business. Or maybe its just commerce in general.

Stop being so outraged about things that you don't understand.

"Is it still evil when Microsoft does it? Or, since it is a copy, does that relieve them of the moral issue that you see?"

Yep, it is wrong -- however WinMo devices can have applications loaded directly from a developer. When MS releases their WinMo store, no one actually needs to use it (I'm sure consumer-friendly stuff will reside there). I don't sell products at Best Buy either, so I'm fine with that. And you can't load anything on the Zune, so I really don't care at the moment, it's just an MP3 player. If they ever actually come out and release a smart phone/PDA based on the Zune UI, the same rules apply.

Palm has an app-store, but you can still sell however you want, same thing with Blackberry, etc. No manufacturer tells you *what* you can do with their device.

Locking down a device is just bad behavior regardless who perpetrates it.

Perhaps the 30% is okay for some people, in the sense that their work would never been seen otherwise, but in my line of work that isn't necessary. We have no reason to ever involve a 3rd party.

It's ultimately a company telling you what you can run on your computer. The rumored "tablet" I thought was supposed to run the same OS, and presumably have the same restrictions... Well, I assume they will evolve the platform into the next laptop as well. So much for any competitors to their own software.

Look at MSFT and the DOJ in the 90s... MSFT was bundling, not preventing other software outright. The DOJ needs to act forcefully as a precedent to prevent this behavior in the future before it becomes out-of-control.

Was I incensed with MSFT in the 90s? Not at all. Every OS includes a browser. And if I didn't have a browser to begin with, how would I get another, call Mozilla and pay $10 for them to mail me a CD? Oh, I could use FTP, but hey, they bundled that too! Darn them, have to remove that as well since Ipswitch still has an alternative client.

Christopher,

Whatever you think of the Apple app store, Microsoft is now in the process of copying it, almost bit for bit, for the Zune. In fact they are actively soliciting iPhone developers---and offering money up front---to port iPhone apps to the Zune store. They're going to charge 30% just like the Apple store.

Is it still evil when Microsoft does it? Or, since it is a copy, does that relieve them of the moral issue that you see?