If your schema is simple, you might want to check out SimpleDB. No need to setup tunnels (queries are handled over HTTP), and latency is super low when querying from an EC2 instance with both end points being inside AWS networks. You are also not charged for traffic between EC2/SimpleDB.
I'm not a mobile developer, but if I were, that wouldn't bother me. The concept of an app store shipping on every iPhone and Apple doing the marketing for you... it's pretty enticing and IMHO well worth that 30%. I'd imagine a high-profile application (read: fad) would gather more money, traffic, and downloads on a forced-down-your-throught app store on the iPhone than on Android where your users have to go more or less out of their way to get it.
Google has said that they intend to offer an "AppStore" for Android, much like Apples.
The differences however will be:
1) You do not have to use it.
2) They will take much less than 30% (so they say)
While I agree with you for small-scale apps made by individuals, I think AppStore is a problem for startups looking to monetize their apps on a larger scale. 30% is a huge chuck off your total revenue any way you slice it. And remember, there is no legal alternative to AppStore for the iPhone.
Good point. However, many applications monetized on a larger scale are built on advertising models, which don't have to give a cut to Apple. But you're right, traditional, expensive, stand-alone software is going to take a hit.
On the other hand, its not like this will mean developers will lose money, they will just be paying more than they should for the value they get from the App Store. Actually, they're likely to make the same profit as their competitors who will also have to give a cut. Either way, Apple can always change its mind and give discounts for large volume sellers, expensive apps, etc, these rules aren't set in stone. Thats the best part about setting limits. Its easier to relax them than to set limits where none before existed.
And how much will the carrier expect to take out of that transaction? If you think they are going to do it for free or for less than they take on app sales for other handsets just because Google tells them so you are making a very dicey gamble.
Good point. I guess the only possible legal alternative to the AppStore is an application installed via the AppStore that does the same thing, but the odds of Apple allowing something like that to be listed on AppStore are near nil.
You are partially describing what GWT does. Except that it doesnt do much special in the way of CSS yet...
It's mainly a re-adjustment based upon the diminished chances of a microsoft buyout. I own MSFT stock (bought some speculatively, expected the deal to fall through, as it did), and at this point Yahoo seems, in fact, quite dead. (I don't mean its properties, but its corporate independence.) I suspect that when it becomes clear that a google deal will happen, yahoo will drop another 30-40 percent. It's really that bad.
What's keeping it up is the continued possibility of a stockholder revolt, which is precisely what needs to happen. (Supposedly, someone was organizing it, but I haven't followed along.) The stockholders need to oust the whole board, and replace it will a cleanup crew, who'll sell out to microsoft.
A google/yahoo buyout won't happen. The gov't (hopefully) wouldn't allow it.
This is starting to seem more common. Posts I see under new section that make me cringe inevitably shoot up to the top of front page. And seems like an increasing number of good posts are getting drowned out.
Agree downmod would be helpful. Even if it had a very high karma or HN usage period requirement in order to use I think it would help the community.
With the iPhone though we are potentially talking about the platform of the future.
Do you want a single monopoly controlling this? That type of situation has historically been bad for innovation.
As an analogy, how would things be if every internet web app created had to operate at the mercy of another company? Startup A has a great idea and wants to release an innovative new webapp. But they need to pay and have permission to do so, must operate in a tightly defined sandbox, and must share profits that they make. And the webapp could be kicked off the internet at anytime for breaking these rules.
Depends if I'm taking the perspective of a start-up founder or a developer.
As a founder I would understand the business strategy taken by Apple who naturally aims to keep a maintainable standard in it's softwares components.
Keeping technical standards is pretty common for any company acting as a platform. In this scenario the end goal seems to be ensuring a level of performance.
A company who decides to create an innovative app should of considered whether or not it can meet those standards.
Otherwise their time creating something innovative should of been applied to a better market or when the platform in place can handle the innovation.
By the way, the smart phone market is far from monopolistic so I'm not really worried.
You are definitely not alone. I'm pretty worried myself. A phone to realistically compete with the iPhone (especially at its new lower price point) is nowhere in site and the walled garden seems to grow with each Apple announcement.
AppStore could be another Facebook platform situation where Apple kills startups at will simply by releasing their own version of a application. And Apple wont need to push icon updates, their apps can run as background services just fine.
I'd like to be optimistic about other emerging mobile platforms, but everyone else is so dreadfully far behind and thats a bit concerning for a developer.