Arrrgh! Sorry - I impulsively down-voted you out of sheer bewilderment that anyone could possibly think that selling an app is more important than a systematic and widespread government invasion of civilian privacy. But your comment is not (necessarily) a troll, just different to my opinion - so I should have just replied saying so instead of disagreeing via rage-downvote.
impulsively down-voted you out of sheer bewilderment that anyone could possibly think that selling an app is more important than a systematic and widespread government invasion of civilian privacy
But not every story about PRISM is important or even telling us anything new. Reflexively upvoting any story that has to do with the government being "bad" is just going to fill the front page with a lot of repeated info (at best) and speculative nonsense (at worst).
At this point in the cycle, most of what you're referring to isn't news. The front page has a lot of analysis of Prism etc, but relatively little news, at the moment.
This announcement may not be the most important topic on the front page, but the parent comment never implied that it was.
That's fine. I've expected polarized oppinions on this.
I just think about it in terms of actionable changes and money flux in startup world, so it is very important to me. It's a maker-or-breaker-of-app-stores kind of change.
This is great. I have a single free app I have no interest in updating, but which I am forced to pay apple £60/year to keep on the store, both for new and old users. Now I can 'park' it with a friend still involved in iOS development.
As far as I can tell, the only thing the users will notice is a change in name of the Seller in the app store listing if they care to notice; there is no active notification to users. The copyright info and date last updated remain the same.
Easy app transfer is potentially a huge secondary market for app developers and the market for "app flipping" could become a very lucrative opportunity for devs.
Well there is money to be made on either side. You, could as a dev get good at at building apps quick and turning around and selling them at some potential revenue multiple. As a buyer, you might be able to buy something cheap that pays for itself over some short period of time if maybe you are decent at marketing or something.
I think it exists in both iOS and Android. I haven't looked into it enough to see which is more valuable, but the possibilities are there.
You could always sell your app, I had to do this a number of times, when I was working on apps for other companies. It just involved a few emails in the past.
This title is not accurate. You could always sell your code and assets but you would have to recompile and resubmit whereas now it stays live through the transfer.
Depends on what you consider to be the "app". The procedure you describe means the app gets a new name, a new bundle ID, means that no existing purchasers get a copy of the newly submitted app, no automatic upgrades, user settings are not migrated, no reviews transfer over, etc.
