4 ms·

Sarbanes-Oxley? http://www.google.com/search?q=Sarbanes+Oxley+Apple http://www.google.com/search?q=Sarbanes+Oxley+Apple

by SeanLuke 16y ago

rbanffy 16y ago
Then why not US$ 0.99?
- ptomato 16y ago
  Possible theory: Cost of bandwidth for downloading 4.2GB is > .99? Honestly, I have no idea, though.
  - astrodust 16y ago
    It's not just the initial download, but the multi-GB updates that are shipped out every few months. I swear I've downloaded 100GB of XCode related material in the last two years.
  - sstrudeau 16y ago
    Amazon S3 transfer costs are (worst case) $0.14/GB, or < $0.60 for 4.2GB. Apple certainly pays a lot less than that per bit.
    - recoiledsnake 16y ago
      Is Apple a cash strapped startup or what? They easily get a lot of value via hardware sales from apps being made for their platforms to start worrying about bandwidth costs. Imagine if all OS X and iOS apps disappeared today? How many would still buy Apple hardware?
- tedunangst 16y ago
  $0.99 is too cheap to convince a regulator that it's the true value of the software?
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    Seriously, whatever magic their accountants may have to do to make a free add-on to an OS they sell remain free, it's worth to reduce the friction for new OSX developers. Remember what Visual Basic did for Windows: it killed DOS development in a couple months. Having a very simple IDE any corporate drone can use to make good-looking applications would drive a lot of acceptance for Mac in medium businesses.
    - tedunangst 16y ago
      I think that magic may be "upgrade to Lion".
ptomato 16y ago
Support for this theory can be seen in the pattern of past Xcode major releases: to date, they've been released included w/ a new version of OS X and have not run on any previous version of OS X, while minor updates have been available for free. ETA: Also does anyone seriously think that the $4.99 is going to remotely even slightly come anywhere within a few orders of magnitude of paying for the development costs? I mean, really?

Sarbanes-Oxley? http://www.google.com/search?q=Sarbanes+Oxley+Apple http://www.google.com/search?q=Sarbanes+Oxley+Apple

rbanffy 16y ago

Then why not US$ 0.99?

ptomato 16y ago
Possible theory: Cost of bandwidth for downloading 4.2GB is > .99? Honestly, I have no idea, though.
- astrodust 16y ago
  It's not just the initial download, but the multi-GB updates that are shipped out every few months. I swear I've downloaded 100GB of XCode related material in the last two years.
- sstrudeau 16y ago
  Amazon S3 transfer costs are (worst case) $0.14/GB, or < $0.60 for 4.2GB. Apple certainly pays a lot less than that per bit.
  - recoiledsnake 16y ago
    Is Apple a cash strapped startup or what? They easily get a lot of value via hardware sales from apps being made for their platforms to start worrying about bandwidth costs. Imagine if all OS X and iOS apps disappeared today? How many would still buy Apple hardware?
tedunangst 16y ago
$0.99 is too cheap to convince a regulator that it's the true value of the software?
- rbanffy 16y ago
  Seriously, whatever magic their accountants may have to do to make a free add-on to an OS they sell remain free, it's worth to reduce the friction for new OSX developers. Remember what Visual Basic did for Windows: it killed DOS development in a couple months. Having a very simple IDE any corporate drone can use to make good-looking applications would drive a lot of acceptance for Mac in medium businesses.
  - tedunangst 16y ago
    I think that magic may be "upgrade to Lion".

ptomato 16y ago

Support for this theory can be seen in the pattern of past Xcode major releases: to date, they've been released included w/ a new version of OS X and have not run on any previous version of OS X, while minor updates have been available for free. ETA: Also does anyone seriously think that the $4.99 is going to remotely even slightly come anywhere within a few orders of magnitude of paying for the development costs? I mean, really?