So again, why isn't the inverse true? If I'm building something that helps sell an iOs device, why shouldn't I get a cut?
Of course I shouldn't, but that's the problem in Apples logic here.
We all, being programmers, like to assume this, but I don't think it's really true. I think the bulk of the value for both Apple and iOS users comes from a pretty small core of apps (Mail, Maps, Browser, Music, YouTube, Publisher subscriptions).
> If I'm building something that helps sell an iOs device, why shouldn't I get a cut?
I don't think Apple agrees that you're "helping sell the iOS device". I think Apple correctly assumes that most people who buy iOS devices do so in ignorance of your app. They can take it or leave it, and if they're not going to get a cut, what possible reason do they have to take it?
- Quickoffice - Local weather app (9news here in Denver) - OpenTable - Her password store (not sure what she's using these days) - Evernote - Probably 8-10 others
My list is completely different. These apps, together, create a lot of value for the phone. When we recommend phones to other folks we do it in the context of the applications running on it. Angry Birds has undoubtedly sold a ton of devices (both Android and iPhone) but it's hardly alone. Hell, I'm positive that I sold an iPhone one day while showing someone a document in Quickoffice.
Each app provides a ton of value to Apple. They owe us, not the other way around.
So again, why isn't the inverse true? If I'm building something that helps sell an iOs device, why shouldn't I get a cut?
Maybe you are right, maybe you should leave apple and help Microsoft sell WP7 devices. They will be grateful.I think people hoping to hit the app store lotto by getting mentioned by Apple or TechCrunch are the same kinds of people that get duped into doing spec work.
"I'll be a millionaire just as soon as my iFart clone gets listed as one of Apple's Staff Picks."
Edit: Man goes to store to buy cereal. Buys milk, too. Cereal company asks store owner "But what do we get?"