3 ms·
Also app.net's $100/yr developer account is perhaps not the best way to attract developers to the platform. Our apps, whether they are dedicated app.net client
by jayfuerstenberg 14y ago
Also app.net's $100/yr developer account is perhaps not the best way to attract developers to the platform.
Our apps, whether they are dedicated app.net clients like Netbot or just apps that let you post content to a user's app.net account, add to the network effect that can help app.net grow.
Developers should be allowed to build against the platform at the same price as regular people pay to become members in my opinion.
I'll be watching app.net and seeing if they change their stance on this in the near future.
- nhangen 14y agoEspecially with such a limited API.
- eridius 14y agoApp.Net is literally paying their developers money, though. If you build a useful tool, you get money directly from ADN. I don't see why paying for access to the API and, more importantly, support, is a problem.
- mbreese 14y agoApple charges $99/year for their iOS or Mac appstores, which has a far greater reach. So perhaps they've set their price too high.
- soup10 14y agoThe $99/year is mostly just away to filter out some of the noise from their review queue and tech support I think. I don't think the revenue from it matters at all to apple.(i'm sure if they thought they could get more quality apps by dropping the subscription, they would. You can still dabble with iOS development without the subscription.
- jayfuerstenberg 14y agoI don't mind paying -some- price and I gladly fork over money for a good product or service. I bought Coda for $99, and MarsEdit for ~$40 and countless other great software. However, paying $99 for the right just to develop against an API so I can add it as an option for an app I'm making doesn't compute for me. I'd probably not use the service enough as a regular user to warrant it either.