"Aren't you free to publish your app on your own website, which any user can navigate to, and install your app from there?"
No. Which is why having a gate keeper at the store is so frustrating.
There are three ways to distribute--iTunes store, ad hoc (limited to 100 device IDs per app and is designed to use for testing) and enterprise which only works for corporate accounts and is limited to devices inside your company.
You can't. You have to sign up for the dev program to get the app on your device. You can program to the simulator, but that doesn't help you with the unique features of the phone (camera, accelerometer, etc).
WOW. I didn't realize that was the case. Now I understand the App store fiasco much more... it seems like Apple is paying the price for its closed architecture culture.
That makes me feel even more strongly about my original post: With an open architecture and less stringent gatekeeping, the G-1 is poised to take advantage of the PR disaster that Apple has been cultivating. It's too bad Apple has a monopoly on branding expertise, or T-Mobile and Google could really strike a decisive blow.
Well, I'm a developer who is interested in stuff more serious than iFart. I recently got an Android phone because I was turned off by all the negative stories I read about developing for iPhone. I can't be the only one in this boat.
If the App Store wasn't a massive success, no one would bother to develop for it, and no one would complain. The negative stories are an indicator of Apple's success. For developers, the Store is a negative, but for the users it is a clear positive; it delivers advanced and slick applications at relatively cheap prices. The users don't hear/care about the developer problems.
Or you can jailbreak, which lets you run unsigned apps including ones that you build in Xcode. But yeah, developing exclusively for the iPhone is just handing Apple a kill switch to your company.
I agree completely. Most of the fanboys who defend Apple's practices would be (justifiably) howling in outrage if any other company did the same thing.
The issue here is that the average person doesn't see the iPhone as a computer. That's why Apple is able to screw its users over like this and not catch any flak for it.
The Dreamcast was relatively open. I think the big reason that Apple kept the phone closed was because it could. People make the mistake of looking at it from a Mac/PC perspective, when really the iPhone was aimed at a consumer market which was already used to phones where the carrier had all the power. Sure, Windows Mobile is pretty open, but how many people use WM compared to generic "text phones"? I'd bet the vast majority of iPhone switchers are coming from the latter category, where the phone company owns your phone for all intents and purposes.
No. Which is why having a gate keeper at the store is so frustrating.
There are three ways to distribute--iTunes store, ad hoc (limited to 100 device IDs per app and is designed to use for testing) and enterprise which only works for corporate accounts and is limited to devices inside your company.