Apple announces App Store for iPhone, iPod touch

Apple finally let us know how we're going to grab all those snazzy new SDK-developed apps: App Store. The application will run right on your iPhone or iPod touch (it's going to be included in the next firmware update) and lets you choose your apps and download them straight to the device. Unfortunately this will be the "exclusive way" to get new apps, which might not sit well with the "free, as in free speech" crowd. Apps will include an electronic certificate, and if a developer does something malicious, Apple can "track them down and tell their parents." Porn is also a no-no. Developers get a 70% cut of revenue, while Apple takes 30% for store "upkeep," though the company claims it does not plan to make money off the store, and if developers wish to release their app for free they can certainly do so. You can also sideload applications you've purchased in iTunes, and updates can be pushed automatically to your app by developers.

[Tyler S. @ Mar 6th 2008 2:14PM]

When will this firmware be available?

[ColonelSmith @ Mar 6th 2008 2:20PM]

June :-\

[fanman @ Mar 6th 2008 2:20PM]

Woop de fucking do...

[dlheritage @ Mar 7th 2008 8:39PM]

^ Callous sophisticate!

[aphotog @ Mar 6th 2008 2:21PM]

Does this mean no free downloads or even free trials of a program?

[fred @ Mar 6th 2008 2:26PM]

No Freeware
No Shareware
No Open Source

You're going to have to pay to play.

[Numetheus @ Mar 6th 2008 2:30PM]

He also said that applications can be sideloaded. If it can be sideloaded, it means it doesn't necessarily have to be paid for. I think just the applications that are downloaded from that app are pay. But I bet there will be tons of free applications you will be able to manually install by downloading it from a web site.

[Grant @ Mar 6th 2008 2:38PM]

absolutely not, if apple is taking a cut for "upkeep fees" they would probably charge anyone who wants to put up anything for free, or have a minimum charge they will take regardless of cost.

[Liam @ Mar 6th 2008 4:30PM]

They only start charging to distribute apps when devs decide to start charging. Free apps will be free apps.

[Sam Winter @ Mar 7th 2008 3:58AM]

@Fred, Grant

Dead wrong. How about you learn to ***** read before you comment. Free/open source apps will be hosted on the iTunes store for free. Also, there will most likely be a way to just sideload an app from your PC/Mac after downloading from a website or compiling in xCode.

[adbthuglife @ Mar 6th 2008 2:25PM]

There will be free apps..

11:08AM - "You know what price a lot of devs pick? Free. When they want to distribute their app free, there's NO charge to distribute free apps -- we'll pay everything to get those apps out there for free. Will there be limitations? Of course. Some apps we won't distribute: porn! Malicious apps!"

[AdamK @ Mar 6th 2008 2:33PM]

I'll believe the "free" comment when I see them on my iphone...

[Chris @ Mar 6th 2008 2:43PM]

Huh? That's the actual quote from Steve Jobs. Free apps will be on iTunes. And you find this confusing to you because...?

[dlheritage @ Mar 7th 2008 8:39PM]

^ Conspiracy theorist!

[AdamK @ Mar 6th 2008 4:59PM]

I didn't say I was confused. I said I would believe it the day I see it. Apple impressed me with iTunes Plus and they can further impress me by publishing software provided at no charge by the developers at zero cost to customers. I worry that free software will not get the attention from the approval/publishing teams that revenue-generating software will receive and will thus take much longer to see the light of day.

[james knowles @ Mar 6th 2008 2:38PM]

I ask people to pay me for the work I do, why do people feel entitled to FREE STUFF all the time? Unbelievable! The i-Phone WORKS! LESS than a year ago there were people who didn't think it would be as cool as it turned out to be. Now we find out it's going to be upgradable - with new apps - and we don't have to buy a completely new phone to do it and people want to complain? Crybaby pussy spoiled brats.

[Grant @ Mar 6th 2008 2:44PM]

it's not that people want something for nothing, it's that people want developers who want to provide free apps to them be able too. Not everyone wants to nickle and dime everyone, some people just do it for fun, and don't expect payment. Now if someone wants to provide a simple app that is useful but not really worth paying for, it won't get made.

[james knowles @ Mar 6th 2008 3:00PM]

Okay Grant - I get it - but I guess I've lived a little longer than most here and I can tell you, there's not much out there in the world that's "free" that works . . . furthermore, if it does work, it's worth paying for. It's just the way the universe works. Those so called developers who want to give away their work? Wouldn't trust them or their product, and would certainly never download or install their "work". Somebody's bright enough to create an application that works correctly without causing problems, they should sell it. And if they're too young, too nerdy, or too inexperienced to figure out how to get paid for their work; they'll learn or they'll fail.

[fanguad @ Mar 6th 2008 3:29PM]

There are also those who aren't "paid" by the people who use their applications. Let's say I'm a dev for Google. I have some nifty program I want to make for the iPhone. What's my business model? Give the program away for free, but attach adwords to it. Not to pick a fight, but free != crap, and free != naive.

[Emceay @ Mar 6th 2008 5:06PM]

*Ahem* Linux, gimp, inkspace, azureus, open office, clamAV... none of these work for free?

[matt poirier @ Mar 6th 2008 5:44PM]

James, would you trust Linus Torvalds or Richard Stallman if they wrote software for you? I was just thinking from the top of my head, and I can't fathom your absolute distrust in free software. In my mind, the choice to not charge for software does not necessarily come from amateurism or a lack of business acumen, but rather is often made for ideological reasons--among others, I suppose. How would you explain the success of 'copyleft' licences, the like of which FSS or Creative Commons have developped?

I ask you this, if developers can make money without charging money for software--such as google does--does this really go against your free market ideology, or does it fit therein?

If you considered this flaming, don't bother responding, just curious is all.

[matt poirier @ Mar 6th 2008 5:52PM]

Oh right, I forgot to mention. If you want people to take you seriously (as I attempted to do...) don't be such a "Crybaby pussy spoiled [brat]". If you truly have "lived a little longer than most here", then you would know that nobody likes a pompous little blowhard shitface that thinks age makes him de facto smarter than everyone else.

That was a flame.

[james knowles @ Mar 6th 2008 6:52PM]

Well Matt, name calling now, tsk, tsk... you must be one of those crybaby spoiled brats who always have to be right, eh? But you know as a fact that the guys who came up with Google have made more money than most anyone in technology. Money is energy Matt. And like I said, I would not trust ANYONE'S "free" software. Period. Google does absolutely nothing for free. Neither does anyone else who is in business. If think GOOGLE doesn't charge, that LINUX doesn't make any money, etc... you need to take a deeper look into those businesses. These guys are powerful forces in the technology world. They may have deep heartfelt beliefs in doing no harm and they may believe in their products so strongly they are willing to extend their energies as far as possible in order to get people to experience how well these products / services work, but I assure you - all of them; A . . . L . . . L . . . are making money or intend to make money. Hobbyists who enjoy developing cute little software crap that may or may not work well and who give it away for free in hope of a donation? Good for them. Very nice of them. You (and they) may want to look up the word "nice" in the Oxford English Dictionary. Meahwhile - I'm quite certain you have a lot to learn. Why don't you go learn it. Sounds like you're in for a rough ride. hahahahaaaa!

[Scott @ Mar 6th 2008 7:21PM]

Wow, James. You sure are an asshat...and with a "holier-than-thou" attitude to boot! I'm certainly glad not everyone thinks like you.

[Alex @ Mar 6th 2008 8:32PM]

Its not that consumers want something for free. Its that if we load 20 applications on an iphone at a cost of 20 dollar/per app it will essentially doubled the cost of of the phone. I'd rather view a few advertisements here or there than pay. I think most people would agree...look at the success of google's services. Granted a lot of the time the motto "you pay for what you get" is true, but many of the applications for the iphone simply do simple things that should already be included. Its ridiculous for a developer to charge for an application that simply marks all e-mails as read or just enables push e-mail. Apple can't think of or doesn't have the resources to enable every feature that is useful so if a developer creates an application for himself and decides he wants to share it as donation-ware whats the big deal and why are you complaining??? If someone plans out a business model and has made an investment in an application that is complex they should surely charge. People don't expect everything to be free, they are just surprised by apple charging when the current unsanctioned facilitators of applications are not. Apple's supervising of the applications is worth something, but perhaps they should have thought of that cost when they set the retail price for the phone itself. The market for applications will supervise itself. Malicious applications will not be downloaded due to a active community. If unsanctioned sources can provide a means of providing applications as donation-ware apple can to.

[matt poirier @ Mar 6th 2008 9:02PM]

Lesson 1:

The distinction between charging money and making money.

"I ask you this, if developers can make money without charging money for software--such as google does--does this really go against your free market ideology, or does it fit therein?"

OH SHIT! I DID mention that google makes money AND I mentioned that they don't charge money.

You need to read a post before you reply to it.

Anyway, if you really are older than anyone here, I suspect you will be dead soon. So I will sleep easy tonight. God bless.

[joe23521 @ Mar 6th 2008 2:55PM]

What's this "nominal fee" for the touch?

[steveo @ Mar 6th 2008 3:01PM]

app store of course NOTHING about apple is cheap or free or good for that matter

[Yours Smugly @ Mar 6th 2008 3:12PM]

Why don't you just RTFA?? Developers can give apps away for free in the App Store if they want that. Apple will still host the app free for them.

[rTwelve @ Mar 6th 2008 3:22PM]

Even the icon is Installer.app blue...

[Moose @ Mar 6th 2008 4:17PM]

I'm not an independent software programmer, but I am a freelancer, and a 30% cut sounds like an awful awful lot. Is this a standard arrangement with software download storefronts??

[Anthony @ Mar 6th 2008 4:33PM]

I gotta say that I'm okay with this. This will keep a lot of crapware off the iPhone and force developers to make a decent product. They way I figure it is, if you don't like it, use a jailbroken phone. Myself, I'll be using a 100% pure iPhone when/if a 3G version is released.

[kilodelta @ Mar 6th 2008 5:00PM]

"iPod touch users will be required to purchase a software update to run these applications."

FUCK THIS!

[Jason @ Mar 6th 2008 7:56PM]

I totally agree.
First we had to pay $20 for 1.1.4, and now we have to buy 2.0 too?
WHAT THE HELL?

When I buy an Apple product I expect FREE SYSTEM UPDATES, and instead Apple is fucking all of its early iPod Touch owners over REPEATEDLY.

Now that it's become clear that this is a pattern and not a one-time thing, without question this is the last iPod I will ever buy. I've already started telling people on multiple forums about this and telling them NOT to buy iPods, and I will continue to do so.

Fuck you, Apple.
Charging for software is one thing, but charging for system updates?
Not even Microsoft does that kind of shit.

[Sam Winter @ Mar 7th 2008 4:02AM]

@Jason..

I think you should calm down. Obviously there is a Sarbanes Oxley issue at hand. Now that doesn't mean they can't charge $1.99 for new functionality, but no one really knows yet. Just wait and see...

[Arjy @ Mar 7th 2008 8:59PM]

10.5 was $120...

[Emceay @ Mar 6th 2008 5:06PM]

I imagine a lot of homebrew hack apps aren't going to be allowed into the store once they go 'legit.' Apple will consider them against their best interests, like viewing the files inside. Which, will lead to a firmware hack that allows you to have installer and app store side by side.

[Billy @ Mar 6th 2008 7:29PM]

I'm so glad they're doing it this way instead of forcing us to use iTunes to get new software. Really, I tihnk it's a great idea to have it right on the phone! Too bad we have to wait another 3 months :(

[Ninjachef @ Mar 6th 2008 8:09PM]

Obviously, many of the apps that are accessible through jail breaking can be added to the App store for free. Apple however, may reject these as they are not from "reliable developers." Plus, that works the other way around, too. We may see official Apple apps being uploaded to installer.app. Who knows?

[TC @ Mar 6th 2008 10:26PM]

Even a "nominal fee" is exorbitantly expensive if you don't happen to be living in an iTunes-approved country. Apple doesn't let us have iTunes store access because it fears piracy, yet it's just because we aren't allowed access to legal means of acquiring these features that we're forced to jailbreak our ipods.

[Jonelle @ Mar 9th 2008 4:51PM]

Yeah, when Steve Jobs said there would be a "nominal fee" for iPod Touch users to get the update, that made me upset. I'm planning on getting an iPod Touch next week and I think the update should be free for both iPhone and iPod Touch users. What's the difference?

[avirji @ Mar 10th 2008 7:07PM]

I agree with you that paying for updates for a $300+ device is pathetic. Especially the January Software Upgrade with which, no doubt, should have been free (especially since making it free would make a lot of people with jailbroken iPods probably upgrade, and make them go legit).
However, the problem with the iPod Touch vs. the iPhone (and before you flame me, I am a PC user) is that with the iPod it's just really something you pay for once. I mean sure there's the music and everything-- but those costs are usually associated with a 'music' player. With the iPhone, you're not only paying for the device, but all the monthly fees for the phone... (data, voice, message... etc.). So with the iPhone, Apple is still getting money even AFTER you have bought the device. With the iPod, however, you only buy the iPod once (hopefully :P) and after that it's to your hearts desire. Therefore, Apple charges for the updates (but I still maintain my position on the January Software Upgrade being free-- just not the App Store).

[Jeff @ Mar 6th 2008 10:33PM]

@James Knowles,

Don't trust free? I guess you haven't used Firefox, Apache, Linux, or most of the apps that are included in OS X. How about Python, Ruby, Perl, PHP, or Java?

You must be totally on Windows and use IIS for serving up websites.

[Braden Herring @ Mar 6th 2008 11:37PM]

You know what'd be great?
If people would watch the keynote before spouting off ignorant comments that are completely wrong.
Apple will NOT charge to put apps on the store.
If the DEVELOPER decides to make the app free, the app will be free.

Now can the illiterates of the internet please migrate to the Microsoft website?

[USGOVMT. @ Mar 6th 2008 11:40PM]

god dammit.
How am I supposed to look at porn on my iphone now?!?!?!
bull**** imma stay on my unlocked 1.1.4

[Dave @ Mar 7th 2008 2:00AM]

I've had an app store for my Windows Mobile touch screen phone (which has GPS, 3G and other useful things, by the way) for years. It's called THE INTERNET. They have free apps and costly apps. Why is this such a big deal? Oh that's right, it's Apple, and the product
has an "i" in front of the name.

[cocoleeeric @ Mar 7th 2008 3:39PM]

個人今天早上也嚇到
真的傻眼
不過可能是癮科技的各位大人們覺得
這樣方便我們各取所需
挑自己想看的看 才這樣做唄...
(其實人家已經很辛苦的幫咱們翻譯了 又不用花錢 體諒一下他們唄)

癮大大們:
辛苦了~ 感謝你們為大家所做的一切...
(OS...希望以後會更好囉....(逃跑XD))

[Kevin @ Mar 8th 2008 3:25PM]

this is just like the january update...apple will release it free for iphones but charges for the ipod touch b/c of the reasoning that ipod touch its buy once and done when iphone u have to pay the service...

[james knowles @ Mar 8th 2008 6:58PM]

still alive.

the point is - the i-Phone will be able to do more stuff than it already does and/or do it better. you won't have to buy a new phone. personally, I am happy to pay for anything I need or want. in other words - i don't ask anyone to work for free or to give me their time for free. i believe you'll find this is how the universe works. sure - some people over- charge for their work. others undercharge. like I said - money is energy. this is a concept not well understood by many. money is just something we use to measure value. if you are a plumber you might have some difficulty feeding your family if you try to charge five grand an hour when most all other plumbers charge one hundred. if you are a plumber who can fix leaks and unclog drains with a magic wand in two seconds, you are going to make more money by charging for results. if you are a plumber who must spend two hours with a monkey wrench and a snake to do the same task as mr. magic wand plumber, you are going to make less money, unless of course magic wand plumber only works two seconds a day and you work all day.

the point being - some people do things that are more valuable to more people and therefore make more money. if what you do is valuable - you need to first prove it, then make others aware of it, then charge what you want. if others agree on the value of what you do they will pay it. just as they are paid for what they do. barristas are worth eight or nine bucks an hour because (fill in the blank). brain surgeons are paid a ton because (fill in the blank).

get it? it's a simple concept that few seem to grasp. money is energy. if my energy is worth five grand an hour and yours ten bucks an hour and hers sixty bucks an hour and we all go to starbucks and buy a four dollar coffee drink, how much did the coffee cost each of us?

it's not personal. the point is - the idea of getting something of value for free is (fill in the blank).

[Henrik @ Mar 9th 2008 7:59AM]

I agree with James. Paid software is better than free software. Period. A developer may give it for free but sooner or later he lacks interest and stops supporting the application. This gives the companies expensive switching other software when updates are needed. Look at Sourcesforge. Thousands of originally free software projects has stopped developing - for multiple reasons. Many people are spoiled with free software and has not paid a single cent for supporting/donating for the usage.