Adonsa's Recent Posts
Just a comment/caution, if I may. I got into serious trouble reviewing and praising a shareware version of another (unrelated) software on the same developer's freeware MacUpdate web page, and I took a lot of negative hits for doing so, even though I stipulated that my review/comments applied to the shareware version. I think that part of it was that I applied a 5 star review (of the shareware edition) to a 1 star web page, and I was beaten up quite severely and deserved it. I'm not suggesting how others should post; just sharing my mistake. Thanks, Jack
Prior to installing the upgrade, iPod Touch was filled to 75%, mostly movies. Upon completion of the upgrade, all movies and photos were gone from the iPod Touch. The slow process of re-identify, select, then re-sync of movies from iTunes to iPod Touch was the only solution. The previous checkoffs in iTune which is supposed to show what movies should be sync, were all unchecked after the upgrade was performed. I didn't do a "star" rating because I don't know if this is an isolated failure or widespread.
Why didn't the Apple employee who posted this clarify why he posted it as "currently unavailable?" Off the top, it appears that he posted this as a placeholder to indicate that The App Store is system software embedded in or tethered to System 10.6.6, which it is. "Currently" means presently, and implies that it was or it will be. This "currently unavailable" annotation refutes Americano (920576)'s posting to the Slashdot website on Jan. 6th, [QUOTE] "Everybody who doesn't have 10.6 can continue installing software like they always have - they lose nothing by not installing this patch."[/QUOTE] implying that it was, at one time, available as a patch for users of systems [gasp!] less than System 10.6.6. If this is not the case, is this the reason it's annotated "currently unavailable?" http://www.thinq.co.uk/2011/1/7/mac-app-store-apps-already-hacked/ ? May I also ask, the attitude of developers begs the question of whether or not they will go exclusive App Store only or continue to publish into public domain channels - hence The App Store vs. MacUpdate/Version Tracker? I ask you this in light of the postings that developers must pay 30% to Apple, plus the percent or fee they pay the copy protection companies, plus the percent they pay to The Esellerate Corporation or other similar vendors. Somebody's gotta pay all this, and it's gotta be the end users. If all this is true, will developers offer incentives to those who download from The MacUpdate or Version Tracker, then pay direct? Slightly off topic comment, if I may, it appears that the roles of MacUpdate and Version Tracker become more important in light of severe regulation of what can be uploaded to The App Store, Example: http://apple.slashdot.org/story/11/01/07/2341227/Apple-Pulls-VLC-Media-Player-From-AppStore On the Slashdot website, Americano recommends [quote] "If you need an app that's only sold on the app store, and the developer totally refuses to sell it any other way, then do business with someone else, or consider whether or not it's time to upgrade to 10.6."[/quote] May I ask a few final questions? Any Apple employee - Why are developers charged 30%? Why not 3%? Is each upload so labor intensive that it takes 30% to process it? Finally, do developers of public domain (free) apps have to pay Apple? Thanks for indulging all this.