<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.1" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The iPhone SDK: Another Walled Garden or a Publisher&#8217;s Paradise?</title>
	<link>http://mobilestance.com/2008/03/09/the-iphone-sdk-another-walled-garded-or-a-publishers-paradise/</link>
	<description>mobile marketing perspectives and analysis</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 15:31:41 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: London Calling &#187; Carnival of the Mobilists 115 is here</title>
		<link>http://mobilestance.com/2008/03/09/the-iphone-sdk-another-walled-garded-or-a-publishers-paradise/#comment-599</link>
		<dc:creator>London Calling &#187; Carnival of the Mobilists 115 is here</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 May 2008 18:32:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://mobilestance.com/2008/03/09/the-iphone-sdk-another-walled-garded-or-a-publishers-paradise/#comment-599</guid>
		<description>[...] personal post of the week comes from Jamie Wells who looks at the new iPhone Software Development Kit from the viewpoint of mobile publishers and advertisers and argues that Apple&#8217;s open stance [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] personal post of the week comes from Jamie Wells who looks at the new iPhone Software Development Kit from the viewpoint of mobile publishers and advertisers and argues that Apple&#8217;s open stance [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Carnival of the Mobilists 115 Now Live @ Andrew Grill's Blog &#124; mobilestance.com</title>
		<link>http://mobilestance.com/2008/03/09/the-iphone-sdk-another-walled-garded-or-a-publishers-paradise/#comment-108</link>
		<dc:creator>Carnival of the Mobilists 115 Now Live @ Andrew Grill's Blog &#124; mobilestance.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Mar 2008 12:54:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://mobilestance.com/2008/03/09/the-iphone-sdk-another-walled-garded-or-a-publishers-paradise/#comment-108</guid>
		<description>[...] The iPhone SDK: Another Walled Garden or a Publisher&#8217;s Paradise?  [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] The iPhone SDK: Another Walled Garden or a Publisher&#8217;s Paradise?  [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Version3</title>
		<link>http://mobilestance.com/2008/03/09/the-iphone-sdk-another-walled-garded-or-a-publishers-paradise/#comment-100</link>
		<dc:creator>Version3</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Mar 2008 19:54:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://mobilestance.com/2008/03/09/the-iphone-sdk-another-walled-garded-or-a-publishers-paradise/#comment-100</guid>
		<description>sorry that this is so wordy, just wanted to point out a few things that are missing from this that might be important, and one that you probably need to fix (see Restrictions comment near end of message).
 
Distribution:  there is still a lot of speculation around how they will "certify" apps, but officially right now, the only apps they've (Apple) said will have to pass a rigorous check are commercial (pay) applications.  From what I've read, the plan currently is to try to minimize the amount of work being done to certify free apps.  The big question is how this will play out, but it may be really important to marketers, because the allowing time for Apple to Certify bit may not be an issue...  and if the last 3rd party content item (for the iTunes store) is any indication (podcasts), it won't be an issue for free stuff, the licensing tied to the SDK may help weed out the junk allowing for a quicker process as well.
 
Free:  None of it is "free" though.  To be a publisher via the iTunes store, there are fees associated with it.  While this may not be an issue for an end-client paying someone to build an app, it does discourage (at least to some extent) the "kid down the street" from publishing apps.  This is also part of the procedure being put in place to help minimize Apple checking and certifying every app.  The cost for the Enterprise App license (paying applications - proprietary) is:  $299  While, the fee for free and commercial applications is:  $99
 
Limitations:  The bandwidth hog thing has been clarified a bit by several people from Apple as I've read around the internets, it's in reference to apps that continue to pull bandwidth, in a constant stream, or through 2-way communication.  Like P2P stuff, or remote access apps.  There are also limitations (this could be important) to apps running in the background (while not up-front and active) and no Plugin install/access applications.  Apps can't do software installations, beyond the initial installation of the app itself  I'm sure.  The running in the background restrictions have already raised a lot of questions, with applications like IM (there are already plans to launch AIM with the iTunes application store in June).
 
Access:  I've read the official Apple plan allows for downloading from the iTunes store even over Edge.  I have no idea how they will be achieving this, probably through a new app item that allows access only to the software portion of the iTunes store.  
 
One more thing:  You have a mistake under "Restrictions"...   last line, you say that VOiP is allowed on WiFi only and will be allowed on EDGE...  the latter should read "will not be allowed".</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>sorry that this is so wordy, just wanted to point out a few things that are missing from this that might be important, and one that you probably need to fix (see Restrictions comment near end of message).</p>
<p>Distribution:  there is still a lot of speculation around how they will &#8220;certify&#8221; apps, but officially right now, the only apps they&#8217;ve (Apple) said will have to pass a rigorous check are commercial (pay) applications.  From what I&#8217;ve read, the plan currently is to try to minimize the amount of work being done to certify free apps.  The big question is how this will play out, but it may be really important to marketers, because the allowing time for Apple to Certify bit may not be an issue&#8230;  and if the last 3rd party content item (for the iTunes store) is any indication (podcasts), it won&#8217;t be an issue for free stuff, the licensing tied to the SDK may help weed out the junk allowing for a quicker process as well.</p>
<p>Free:  None of it is &#8220;free&#8221; though.  To be a publisher via the iTunes store, there are fees associated with it.  While this may not be an issue for an end-client paying someone to build an app, it does discourage (at least to some extent) the &#8220;kid down the street&#8221; from publishing apps.  This is also part of the procedure being put in place to help minimize Apple checking and certifying every app.  The cost for the Enterprise App license (paying applications - proprietary) is:  $299  While, the fee for free and commercial applications is:  $99</p>
<p>Limitations:  The bandwidth hog thing has been clarified a bit by several people from Apple as I&#8217;ve read around the internets, it&#8217;s in reference to apps that continue to pull bandwidth, in a constant stream, or through 2-way communication.  Like P2P stuff, or remote access apps.  There are also limitations (this could be important) to apps running in the background (while not up-front and active) and no Plugin install/access applications.  Apps can&#8217;t do software installations, beyond the initial installation of the app itself  I&#8217;m sure.  The running in the background restrictions have already raised a lot of questions, with applications like IM (there are already plans to launch AIM with the iTunes application store in June).</p>
<p>Access:  I&#8217;ve read the official Apple plan allows for downloading from the iTunes store even over Edge.  I have no idea how they will be achieving this, probably through a new app item that allows access only to the software portion of the iTunes store.  </p>
<p>One more thing:  You have a mistake under &#8220;Restrictions&#8221;&#8230;   last line, you say that VOiP is allowed on WiFi only and will be allowed on EDGE&#8230;  the latter should read &#8220;will not be allowed&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
