Slashdot Mirror
iPhone App Pricing Limits Developers
HardYakka writes "According to this post in the Fortune blog, the iTunes app store has been a boon for users but some developers are saying the number of free and 99 cent apps make it difficult for developers to create complex, higher priced apps. Craig Hockenberry of Iconfactory says the iPhone may never get its killer app like the spreadsheet was for the Mac.
If Apple does not do something, the store will be left with only ring tones and simple games. Some are suggesting that overpaid developers are the problem and the recession will soon lower the wages and costs for complex apps."
Visicalc was an app for the Apple II, not the Mac.
Simply add Top Apps categories for more price ranges...
$1-$5
$5-$10
$10-$50
$50- ??
Why not release a free, crippled version of your app that allows people to look at it, evaluate it & decide if it's worth $2.99? Now where have I heard of that business model before?
Honestly, there's so many development restrictions on iPhone apps, why bother publicizing this non-story.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
What the Hell? spreedsheets were the killer app for PC's period.
it was not mac-specific-- it was a much earlier dawn of the PC age.
"VisiCalc was the first spreadsheet program available for personal computers. It may well be the application that turned the microcomputer from a hobby for computer enthusiasts into a serious business tool.[1] VisiCalc sold over 700,000 copies in six years.[2]"
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Because in the Shitty New Economy, people will be blowing all kinds of money on applications for their overpriced smartphones.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
I think a lot of these free and low-priced apps will eventually go up in price. With the exception of the ridiculously simple apps like all of the various flashlights, I have a feeling that companies are putting apps out for free to get a lot of great reviews, and then plan to eventually jack up the price. I have to admit, though, there are so many free apps out there, it's difficult to find a niche that is likely to have a reasonable pay-off. That's life, though, I guess.
ZuluPad, the wiki notepad on crack
This is utter crap on behalf of any developer. If you make a decent software app and it sells to 100,000 people for $0.99 then how much have you actually made. Yes it is a competitive market, but you sell your app for 0.50c and let people go with it. 100,000 people buying an app for 50c each should more than pay for it. An idea could be as complex as you like and I still can't see spending more than $100 Grand on it for an iPhone app.
Unless you're a shitty developer or you're not writing a good app.
Me failed English...
FreeBSD over Linux. If my comments seem odd, this may explain...
One developer said:
"Both developers and designers cost somewhere between $150-200 per hour."
That's too much. I haven't used iTunes, but if it isn't based on simple popularity but has some kind of after-the-purchase rating system, there shouldn't be too many worries. If there isn't, they should implement one. With reviews and ratings like Amazon.
I also have a hard time believing that only the most simple apps will get made, there seems to be a "10 Most Useful" iPhone App list every other week popping up at some social sites like Digg.
Another limiting factor on iphone app's is fact apple will kill off any app that competes with their's or anything they are about to put out.
It needs open apps no store lock in like Symbian phones.
I think the article can be summed up by one phrase used often in MMOs:
QQ
Maybe if the devs could spend time writing apps people might want to buy as opposed to emo /wristing all over blogs and the rest of the Internet, maybe they would get somewhere. Should someone write something that people use, they can easily charge $15, $25, or more. However, if they write yet another Tetris clone, they shouldn't expect much.
The iPhone is the first and foremost platform for cellphones these days. Windows Mobile, Symbien, Android, and others have been relegated to niches or bit players. With this wide a market, even just a little bit of market penetration would gain an iPhone app developer a lot of marketshare. With all this laid out for iPhone devs on a silver platter by Jobs himself, they really can't complain.
Now where did I put that smallest violin...
Trism is a very simple example of an app that proves that developers can make money, and a lot of it. Last I hear, the guy that wrote the program has made over $250,000 on an app that he sells for $4.99. Why? It's really simple - it's a great game that's well worth the price. Free is fantastic and a majority of apps on my iPod Touch are free apps but, if the content is of quality and worth it, I'll pay for it. And so will thousands and thousands and thousands of other people. Complaining that some people are willing to do some coding for free isn't a way to make money. Make a quality product. If the people who complain about free apps making it hard for people to make money spent more time coding and making a quality app and less time complaining, they might make more money...
Code something that is 'insanely great' and you will survive to charge $4.99 for your app. Otherwise, perish in flame.
Sig this!
It's a stupid rant. Look at the market for PC software.
There are a lot of *free* applications. Lots. More than I can every use.
Then there are inexpensive shareware stuff. $5-15
Then there are the mainstream shareware apps. $40-60
From there, applications go as high as you want to pay.... $100-500 $1000, $5000
All are available on the internet. Do free applications limit the abilities of developers to churn out $50 software? Or $100 software? No. People will pay what the software is worth.
This guy seems to be making the argument that somehow a low price sets the expectation of low prices. It's a dumb argument. If developers come up with an application that's worth $500 guess what... they will pay $500.
What he's really saying that the $1 applications are so good that he can't compete. And that's probably true. What he needs to do is make his applications worth more than $1. It's not the platform that's holding him back. It's not the price of cheap software holding him back, it's his own inability to write valuable software that commands a premium price. Seriously. Does he even understand that you can't write a general purpose iPhone app and expect to get $50 for it? He's going to have to hit some vertical market software (highly specialized) to command premium dollars. How about a full-blown VST/Softsynth app that will accept plugins for the iPhone? I'd pay $200 for that. How about working with a high-end electronics company to write apps to control lighting/music for home-automation? He could probably get $300-500 for that.
Just being a good programmer isn't good enough. He should know better.
Seriously, he's all wet.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
This seems like a complete non-sequitur.
If an large expensive app will make me money what does the existence of 99cent ringtones have to do with my purchasing decision?
It sounds to me like developers of useless, unusable, and or badly marketed applications are not finding buyers and blaming free cheap apps for their failings.
Personally I have a hard time seeing many cases where it is worth signing the apple developers license (or whatever it is called, I cannot remember and cannot be bothered to download it again.)
As I recall the license that the developers agreed to basically said: All Your Base Belong to Apple, Suck it up.
OpenMoko, Symbian, and Android seem to have much better terms for developers. If you have a killer app and someone will buy the phone for your app, why put yourself at Apples mercy?
BSD Networking Release 1 was $1,000 per tape. and sold several hundred copies.
If you can sell BSD licensed software for $1,000 a pop, don't tell me you can't sell a high priced useful program on the iTune app store.
High priced crap on the other hand . . .
Work bio at MMWD
I'm an iPhone developer. My company have been in the top sellers in US and Canada. And I agree, with some reserve, to what is being written.
If you look at the games that are produced on the iPhone, they are very good, frankly, many of them have many hours of replay value, many of the apps are top notch, and compared to other phones, they are of insane quality. And for a game that we sell more than $20 on any PC, and even more on consoles, we can only barely nudge a $5 on the iPhone, for nearly the same production quality. That's thousands and thousands of man-hour of work, sold at $5. Think about that. Even then, we got average results: either the comments were raving on our game, either people were giving one star and saying it was way too expensive. That's total bull. And that's what's pissing off people creating solid applications.
When the iPhone started, some games (like Monkey Ball) were $10. Some productivity apps were $10 to $15. I paid for a few $10 software, and they were with ample merit. Omnifocus is such a tool, real great, well made, even the v1 was excellent. Then, the top sellers became $5 software. Now it's mostly $1 software.
And that's where I put my grumpy developer shell on the shelf. Frankly, I congratulate $1 games and free games and $1 leisure and productivity tools. They make sure we are not paying $5 like on other phones to get a total piece of crap snorted out by a subcontract firm in 2 weeks. They make sure if we want to pay $5, it's for a good reason. That a software becomes a meme and gets sold by the thousands for 2 weeks and then get replaced by the following meme, I congratulate them. The only reason we are noticing these is because the way the ITMS works "free" and "pay" tops, and nothing else.
Many good applications cost much more, and hopefully they are getting their own crowd and their own push, with their own publicity. Like on PC with freewares and sharewares and commercial software, you pay mostly by merit.
Wasn't the spreadsheet the killer app for the Apple ][?
I thought the killer app for the Mac was desktop publishing.
Sure, having to compete with el-cheapo apps isn't anybody's idea of fun; but I find it very odd that their presence would act against complex apps. If the simple stuff is a mass of cheap and/or free, then the profit motive will lead developers to try to build products that distinguish themselves from the mass and can command a higher price(or, y'know, lobby for new laws, RIAA style).
Rather than "OMG cheap competition!" I'd be inclined to suspect a couple of things: First and foremost: Uncertainty over App store approval rules. Apple can, and sometimes does, just yank the rug out from under an app during the approval process. The rules are underdetermined and don't seem to be followed terribly consistently, and there is no real appeal. This is Apple's right, legally speaking; but is it any huge surprise that people are not rushing to make large investments in highly complex products?
Secondly, cellphones, even nice ones, are mediocre platforms for big highly complex stuff. Apple has done a substantially better job than usual; but nothing(presently available) can really disguise the fact that you are working on a tiny screen, with very limited input options.
Somehow, those terrible, terrible, innovation killing people who give software away have failed to destroy large, complex applications on the PC, I strongly doubt that they are managing that here.
Hmmmm,
How about an open market? The "other" smartphones which were around much earlier than the iphone and are still more functional have open application markets. I have a Blackberry and have found that the free apps are the best anyway. Even the $50 apps don't even come close to the functionality and complexity of the free Google apps or even some of the open source ones. I would not mind paying you guys if you did not produce utter crap ware. I saw one application that was an icon that launched the weather in the blackberry web browser for the low price of $30. What a joke!
Produce real applications that do useful things and sell them at a reasonable price. Most of the apps out on the market are useless "gee whiz" apps that take a very short time to "hack" together and are useless.
This guy is bitching? He has the gravy train of vendor lock in and a single marketplace to peddle his wares. I wonder how he would react with a market full of free open source apps and overpriced crap ware aimed at dumb executives with too much time and money on their hands.
overpaid developers are the problem and the recession will soon lower the wages and costs for complex apps.
wizzed right on my cornflakes! Come over here and say that real slow sonny. Mr. Knuckles doesn't hear so well.
[signature]
Is this "Please give me a bail out because I can't figure out how to compete" week on slashdot?
I for one welcome our scrotal-inflating overlords.
...and vote with your wallet. You people buy iPhones like they're going out of style and then spend your days complaining. Buy a Blackberry, already.
I spent $20 on omnifocus and couldn't be happier with the purchase. Good software can demand higher prices.
buzzword for the 2nd decade of the century. Usage: "I just downloaded another craplication for my smart phone."
How is this different from other for pay software? I walk into a store and buy shrink wrapped software and 99% of the time I can't return it if I've opened it, much less decided I don't like it. They need something called MARKETING. And all they want is free marketing on the itunes store, but word of mouth or actual ads might work as well or better.
Would a digg like site for the app store help?
Think Deeply.
Your hired. You'll be paid $100k a year, and you'll write a new iPhone app for me every six weeks. An idea could be as complex as I like, and I still can't see it taking you more than six weeks to implement, unless you're a shitty developer or wasting time, in which case, you're fired.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
I think it would be far more interesting to list apps by highest price. If someone wants $1-$2 for a puzzle game, that's cheap. But not crazy, I suppose.
But if you were selling something more substantial, like many of the utility apps seen on Palm (databases, pdf viewers, word processors, spread sheets, electronic checkbooks, etc). I don't see why people wouldn't fork out $10 for it. Obviously in smaller numbers, because that $1 price barrier is soo easy.
Are people really buying 10 games/ringtones instead of 1 power app that offers something important? I find it hard to believe.
Apps that I would like to see, that could be worth something:
* Spending program, you can take a picture of your paper receipt and it logs the total(using simple OCR) and the time. And then lets you organize the data in powerful ways.
* Generic Inventory Database, store lists of any old thing. the obvious DVD library, CD library, etc has been done to death. Being able to track inventory of any widget with custom fields would be great. How many ming vases do I have with jade? I should be able to list them all immediately and include photos.
* Password keychain
* RSA SecurID softtoken - turn your iphone into a securid fob. get rid of that little keychain you need to log into your work's VPN. (this is indeed possible, I had them for other OSes)
(I'm tired of coming up with examples, but I think there are 20-30 solid utility apps that were done in one form or another for PalmOS that I haven't seen yet on iPhone)
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
It all boils down to free market. This is like complaining that all those cheap apples ruin the market for selling an apple for 10$ - "We used to sell the apples for 10$ a piece. And we can still charge 10$ per apple in some markets, like Iceland where they do not grow. But somehow our 10$ apples dont sell very well here, i wonder what that is. It must be those hippies that give their friends an apple or those who sell it by the pound!"
There are lots of issues with making complex apps under this pricing universe, and it's definitely a deterrent to making more interesting complex apps. People seek technical support for complex apps. If the app costs $0.99, and they ask you a single question about a problem they caused themselves, they have burned enough time to tank a whole day's worth of sales.
Another issue is that Apple doesn't provide software vendors with contact information for our customers, but does allow (and with iPhone OS 2.2 actively encourages) them to complain in the app store, under essentially anonymous handles, about issues that they caused themselves. For example, an app we make is highly praised by most users, but a few complain vociferously that it's "unstable" or "crashes a lot". Yes, in fact our QA tells us this is definitely true -- but only if you run it on a Jail Broken iPhone. Doh! So sorry you didn't contact us for support. So sorry you don't understand you shot your foot off and we neither gave you the gun nor pulled the trigger.
iTunes App Store is basically an ongoing experiment. It's not clear that third party software developers can devise a business model on it which will make a profit.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
This is a matter of supply and demand, equilibrium prices, etc. The economic theory is that if vendors and customers will naturally settle upon a price that is both mutually agreeable and in a way that maximizes profits at a price agreeable to the consumer. Customers that feel the prices are too high, or vendors that feel the prices are too low will have to either wait until prices meet their expectations or will leave the market. A case in point, on the consumer side is waiting another year before buying a new television because your reasonable expectation, based on trends, is that the price will decrease.
If this application developer isn't willing to supply at the current equilibrium price level, then they can charge more but will likely see a decrease in overall profits versus selling it for the equilibrium price at which they can move more units.
No, you have definitely got it wrong. Most of the iPhone developers I know are exactly the opposite of whiny. They are energetic, hard working, play by the Apple defined rules, and working really hard to justify their really expensive hobby of making cool software. They tend to do this because they have experience with lots of other technologies, and they like the Apple technologies better, they are more fun for developers, but they are, often, less profitable.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
Let's see...
I want a high quality OS, that has many expensive alternatives and ALSO not pay for it: Linux
I want high quality applications and NOT pay for them as well: MySQL/Postgres/Gimp
How do these companies make money when they give away their products? They sell services and support.
So all of you that push FREE open source software; congrats you got it on the iPhone as well. Developers need to find another revenue stream than trying to sell a million copies at pennies per copy until someone wants to sell something for cheaper that is "close enough."
My company, illumineX, makes a blogging client for the iPhone, iBlogger. There are a dozen competitors, most of them are free. We charge $9.99. We are told that it's one of the most expensive apps on the store. We're also told that it's one of the most complex (blogging client apps are surprising complex, if they support more than one blog type). Many of our customers used most or all of the other applications, first, and were happy to pay for iBlogger, because they feel it's worth the price. Are we making enough money to justify the work that it took to make the app? Not even close. Are we going to lower the price? Well, one of our few competitors who charged money lowered their price for a month. It went back up. Why? I'm gonna guess that sales didn't go up much, and tech support costs went way, way up.
Apple's long term success may not depend on complex apps being available. If it does, however, then there are serious problems with the iTunes App Store market.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
I have 4 programs for the iPhone on the App Store. They are $1.99 for all but one which is $0.99. I paid a graphics artist $1000 (actually a split of the first $5000 of sales, little did either of us guess) and I spent an average of about 3 weeks per app. The two word oriented games have huge dictionaries in Spanish, Russian and English. So far my net payments from Apple are no stellar, well under $1000. The reasons... 10,000 other apps. The jockeying for the current release spots. (we have had issues on 2 of the four that buried them 4 pages in on current releases so no great buzz...) and a whole bunch of imitators that follow on with limited functionality knock-offs for free or 99 cents. Not to mention the competitors who on day one would give a bad review which just kills sales. Even though they didn't buy a copy. That is corrected now. My competitors will at least have to pay all of $2 to say my app crashes on startup. (It won't get through Apple screening if it does that, well, anymore)...
So professional developers will just not be able, as the co-sympathizer over at Icon Factory notes, be able to put the effort into really feature-full apps. And they at least have a decent marketing engine behind them. They can get sales over 100,000 for each app. I am hoping to get something like 3-5000 in sales for each app.
Apple just makes it hard for me to have an independent sales effort as well. I had a major chain store's buyer interested in having my App(s) for sale in their store. I wrote Apple a nice letter pointing out the issues. And they acted on the portion suggesting a promo code so I could get reviews but have so far rejected things like selling me a code for the app at their cut of the purchase price, so I can do things like sell it myself to brick and mortar stores. Create my own storefront online to increase the sales of my App(s) without Apple recommending my competitors products at checkout, and so on. And on. And on.
So yes. Great for the iPhone user. There are a lot of applications that are free or well under $5 most hovering at either 99 cents or $1.99. And before you say anything derogatory about paid software will sell if its good and so on, people buying games will take a free version if it is just for minor diversions and live with the limitations instead of a paid version, and for some of us programming is not an avocation, its the way we pay rent and put food on the table.
- Tjp
I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!
There are only a handful of reasons why iphone users wouldn't buy an iphone app:
1. They don't know about the application. AirSharing took care of this one quick, fast, and in a hurry.
2. They don't need the function. You will never win these users unless their situation changes.
3. They would like the function, but the user does not want to pay your price. These people will simply do without your app until the price is lowered or...
4. The user has found a lower cost, freeware alternative. If you're selling an app for $10 that does the exact same thing as a free app, then you need to figure out what makes your app worth $10.
As has been said, this is the issue across every market segment, IP or tangible, goods or services.
I seriously don't know why these companies don't do time-bombing demos. SwirlyMMS has done it with great success. They charge $8 for an app that addresses one of the biggest gripes about the iphone, give you 14 days to make sure that you can configure it properly, and last I checked they did a pretty good job at it. If they can implement all of that - without the App Store - then why can't all these other developers who are writing apps?
Joey
Maybe it has something to do with 80% of the reviews I see for apps complaining about price.
"I'd give this 5 stars, great app! Except $10 is too much so I'm giving it 2. Get with it!!"
Everything is worth what it's purchaser will pay for it...
He later added: so lower your prices ya halfwits
I have seriously considered writing an application along those lines, but the fixed-lens camera puts it out of reach. I know there has been some amazing progress in sharpening a blurry image in software, but implementing that kind of technology with my limited resources is virtually impossible.
Just because their (Apple) platform exists does not obligate them to cater to everyone's whims, on their dime none-the-less.
Are all you guys talking about how this guy is a whiner and should be able to compete with cheap apps the same group of people who whine like a stuck pig whenever somebody mentions the idea of hiring coders or IT workers from India instead of the United States?
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
OK, just kidding. In my case though, I'm limited as an iPhone developer because I don't want an iPhone. Of course, I don't usse FaceBook, MySpace or any of that crap. I only use IM occasionally because I know some other people who use it. And yes, GET OFF MY LAWN.
At least now I don't have to buy an iPhone to re-train for all those jobs where they're looking for iPhone devs (no, really, they are looking). I can rest assured that it's a waste of time because by the time I'd be any good at it, all those companies will have folded because their VCs realized they are a black hole. The last job lead I got was for a job with a financial company. It doesn't matter if the market is going up or down, people alway want to keep track of their money. Seems like a winner, especially since I'm officially over the hill now. :)
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
since when? lead me to this land of highly paid developer positions
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
I use 1Password for a password keychain, the Mac sync is pretty slick. I don't think the camera on the iPhone could manage a receipt.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
What's next? They going to ask Washington for a bailout as well?
I does seem to be the business plan du Jour now, doesn't it?
Just replace "overpaid developers" with "overpaid union workers", and it sounds creepily familiar to the big 3 auto company Senate hearings.
No, it can't be that the management's business plan is Blagojevich'ed, blame the workers salaries. And the executives are earning how much?
Yes, Ballmer will testify before the Senate, that although he does not need money now, if the iPhone app industry had problems, he might need a few billion on a credit line, because that will affect him, as well.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Uhm... "Flamebait" this was not. Using the exact same argument as its parent, applied on the flip side of the developer relationship (cost, rather than revenue) should have merited an Insightful mod. Alas, there is no "understands subtle arguments" requirement for moderators.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
There is a password keychain, 1Password. And you sync it with your browser. They'll have to improve the camera to get OCR.
I swear there are Inventories available, and Delicious Monster is coming, maybe soon.
If I sign into my bank on a different computer, it sends me a number via messaging. I type in the number, boom!
Just imagine the whining that would be going on if the iPhone were open source.
That's rediculous. It's all about supply/demand. The cost for an iPhone app, like anything else, will be based on the work required to create it and the value it provides. If higher priced apps are replaced with lower cost 99 cent versions it's simply because the app was overpriced to begin with! You can't overcharge for an app and expect no one to undercut you. If you write a truely worthwhile app then you can charge appropriately. Don't be silly.
There just needs to be a company that has the balls to make something so good that everyone has to buy it for years to come. Someone who will make an app for the iPhone that's actually worth $15 or $30.
These developers shouldn't complain if their shitty $5 apps aren't selling for $10. If it was so frigging great they could price it at $10 and people would buy it. Stop whining about price pressure, that's bullshit. The Apple et al way is to say "I think my product is the best so I'm going to charge $X. If you don't want to pay it I dare you to look for something equivalent. You won't find it for any price, and it's not like I'm charging that much you cheap bastard."
How does the price of non-related apps affect demand? There are many more cheap apps for desktops than there are expensive apps, so how is the iPhone any different? And if these really cheap apps are duplicating the functionality of some of the more expensive apps, then how is that anything other than good competition? If people don't want to buy a certain app because it is more expensive than what they usually pay for apps, then they must not see much value in it to begin with, and that is the developer's problem.
CMYK is device-dependent and not orthagonal.
You have to convert anyway. You might as well work in a colorspace with tolerable math properties.
Conversion belongs in your printer driver or in the printer itself.
Direct editing of CMYK makes people feel special. They get to pretend they are all professional. It's pure idiocy.
Every single comment here missed the point but I'm sure few actually read the article. The developer was not whining about not getting in to the top apps list. He was saying that most sales are done during the few weeks in the top apps list and that his company can't legitimize spending the money to develop complex applications because there may not be enough of a return.
He's not whining that he isn't in the top apps section, he's saying that the system is flawed if that's the only way to get prominent placement enough to generate sales. He doesn't suggest a solution; rather, he points out that Steve Jobs and everyone at Apple is smart enough to figure out a solution. It's a valid point that was, unfortunately, lost on most people who read the letter.
We should all be rejoicing at the prospect that Apple's ridiculously walled garden of a smartphone app distribution model might crumble into ringtones and other nonsense, since the more it is taken seriously the more our future handheld freedoms are in danger through copycatting and industry-wide adoption (think it won't happen? cf. PlaysForSure + iPod = Zune). Sadly, however, TFA'S argument is bogus, since on desktop systems, people publish extremely complex apps for free, every day. Oh well. Guess it's back to hold out all of our wrists for velvet handcuffs...
Hockenberry is a former developer turned business owner.
His complaints seem to stem from three things:
1. Developers are selling cheap straight to the customer.
2. Developers charge too much for him to be guaranteed a profit from their labor.
3. These cheap apps don't reflect his ideals of a good application.
Could this be a microcosmic view of a sea change that is at our doorstep? Software engineers, labor, can now sell directly to the customer - and the product reflects "scratching an itch" simplicity. Corporations like Hockenberry's take a share of the income and add a certain level of quality control and interface polish. The customer has the power of the purse - and is choosing the discount route buying directly from the developer.
There is an advantage to being the low-price competitor, but such is the free market. It seems a more fundamental question is being raised by this market demonstration: Is the corporation adding sufficient value to the products that software engineers create to justify its piece of the action?
Over the past 30 years, the wealth-creation potential of knowledge workers has exploded. No longer the single-buyer creations of the factory worker, 21st century labor creates infinitely reproducible information products. The products themselves have seen an unprecedented rate of advance from the black and white blobs and monospace text of 20 years ago to the fledgling storefront websites 10 years ago to today's globally connected life utilities.
During the same period, wealth has been concentrating with executive management (see income distribution, 1970 to present). The 90th to 95th percentile of income, largely the range software engineers occupy, has seen its income remain flat relative to GDP. Meanwhile, the top 0.1% has seen its share of GDP increase by about 6x (see Piketty Saez 2007).
Another point to consider is advertising. The corporation, which uses advertising to create a perception of value (sometimes justified, sometimes not), has not yet figured out this new market. The market is acting without the benefit of the siren song (for better and for worse).
Interesting data points, those:
1. Over the past 30 years, the wealth creation potential of knowledge workers has been on a meteoric climb.
2. In that same time, the income of the pay bracket those knowledge workers occupy has stagnated - while that of corporate senior officials has risen by a factor of 6.
3. The distorting effect of advertising has not yet reached this particular market.
4. Customers are foregoing corporate products in favor of buying direct from the software engineer at a discount price.
5. A representative of the corporation, the traditional bearer of risk in ventures, is complaining that he cannot be guaranteed a profit.
Seems to me there may be a force other than foolhardy consumers at play here.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Devs decide on the price.
The real story is how users seem to have a say in the price they're willing to pay on itunes. If an app doesnt sell on itunes, its price goes down quite fast. It has nothing to do with apple. Its market demand.
Gameloft appears to make all of its games using chinese developers and they charge $10s for each of their games. Thats considered a high priced game on itunes. I know its not really that high but gamelofts games, while better polished than the rest, still feel like cheap Chinese imitations of real games.
Gameloft seems to be raking in the cash, as are other devs of popular apps.
Most .99 cent apps arent even worth .99 cents. If developers are whining... they should raise their prices. BUT be warned, the itunes app consumer is pretty picky and will wait until you're forced to come down to a "fair" price.
Yes, It may be some time before there is a $200 MS office sweet on the iphone but who wants it? The iPhone isnt really designed to be a workstation. There isnt the need for heavily developed programs because working on the iphone aint exactly something you want to do for a long period of time. Thats what laptops are for.
Jeez, when will people accept that Macs are designed by people who themselves are designers and the OS is built around the typical workflow of designers and not that of code geeks and techies?
If you knew anything of the internals you'd know just how wrong you actually were. Who among the code geeks and "techies" would not appreciate a mainstream computer that comes with Bash, Apache, Perl, PHP and Ruby built right in? Or can appreciate upcoming things like OpenCL?
It's true there are ALSO a lot of great design oriented features added atop the very nice technical layer - but the technical innards are very much aimed squarely at the people you think have no interest.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I am an iPhone developer, and I knew from day one that the App Store was going to be very crowded, and I would (to make money as a full time app developer) have to (a) produce very high quality apps, and (b) market them. That's right, Market. Even though Apple provides an excellent channel and about as direct a path to consumer adoption as there could possibly be, unless you are an Apple featured app marketing is an important part of the equation to help customers find your application, and to explain just why they might want to pay a little more.
That is how software has always been, the first people in the app store were lucky because there was so little competition but now it's (as a friend of mine puts it) a marathon, not a sprint. You have to be committed to your app, to your users, and to promotion of your own application - that in the long term is how you get sales.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The problem is that iPhone apps are really plug-ins to a larger application. Nobody makes real money selling plug-ins for any application, phone or otherwise. You're in too inferior a marketing position.
Based on what I've read and heard from my peers, I believe I am correct in saying that developers are not permitted to spawn background processes. I have not had the opportunity to develop on an iPhone, so let me know if I am incorrect in making this assertion.
I can see the logic behind the decision; it allows Apple to achieve an immediate goal of preventing its application store from becoming a source of persistently annoying and intrusive apps. That being said, I still feel that being able to spawn other processes is something that I should be able to do when developing on any system made post 1960.
Being required to pay a fee in order to develop on a platform is "annoying" I guess, but if there is anything that is making "it difficult for developers to create complex" applications, I'd attribute the process restriction as a more likely source.
From the original article:
"Both developers and designers cost somewhere between $150-200 per hour."
Well gee, maybe that's the problem right there. I've been coding on the Mac for fifteen years, and I own my own Mac OS X software company. I've written apps that have been featured in MacWorld and on Apple.com, and I make about $28 a day. Yes, a day. I'm going broke, sure, but my yearly expenses are only about $18k a year tho. And I live quite comfortably at a $18k expense output. So if I can get a regular 9-5 at the grocery store next month to supplement my Cocoa programming I think I'll do fine...
My point though, is that maybe if these designers/developers spent more time actually writing code and less time planning their next snowboarding trip in Switzerland, some of these problems might resolve themselves.
$200 an hour for a couple thousand lines of Objective-C? Are these people out of their $#@ minds? Get a grip on reality."
So wait, you're complaining that your costs are high and you have to compete with cheaper, inferior products? What is Apple supposed to do? Figure out how to lower your cost, or raise prices and market more. Convince people that your app is worth paying a few more dollars for. You don't even have a solution, all I hear is whining...
First post! (just in case I am...)
It's not innovated enough for me, but fine for what it is. Roughly equivalent to the PalmOS ones. Can you merge the password databases? I could only sync them on Palm.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Do you even know what these big time movie producers use Linux for? Math!
Most of the Linux farms are there for rendering or simulations of various kinds (water, crowds, fire, etc.) They're just crunching numbers and returning data. These are tasks that are easy to break up into pieces and have lots of machines work on just a bit of the problem so that you can get your results back quicker - grid computing type solutions.
All of the actual creation of textures and image work is still mostly done on either a mac or a windows box.
Linux is only free if your time is worthless.
-Don
Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
We all want more "I'm Rich" apps for the iPhone don't we? ..... At least that's the message I'm reading between the lines from these developers. Sarcasm
I didn't know that [...] only Indians can be named Haji. Aren't you being racist by assuming that names are tied to race?
A) Because of the outsourcing of tech jobs to India, the "cheaper Indian tech worker" is a stereotype - especially in tech circles.
B) Haji is a racial epithet for all people with brown skin or of non-Christian belief. It is a blanket term for "the other" or "them", and is used by US military personnel in Iraq like "gook" was used in Vietnam, "Kraut" in Germany, and the way the "N word" is used in the United States by rednecks: As a way to dehumanize and demoralize.
I will assume you were ignorant of this second fact, but have a hard time believing you didn't know the first.
Manufacturing a fictional cheaper coder named Haji for the sake of discussion may not have been willfully bigoted, but to claim that your fictional Haji was anything other than a person with brown skin insults the intelligence of everyone reading this thread.
Of one thing you are correct: Nationalism and Racism are not (strictly speaking) the same thing. Xenophobia has many shades, but they all divide the world into "us" and "them".
I don't believe there was any malice in your choice of names. If only you said "If Bob next door can write a app and sell it for $1.99 that you want to write and sell for $29.99...", but you didn't. You used a stereotype and an epithet to create a "them" to compare someone to and got called out on it.
Man up and move on. Don't dig any deeper.
If people complain his APP is too expensive and don't buy it, maybe he should consider it is the free market telling him he is actually REALLY making his app to expensive for the real demand, and lwoering the price would meet the MARKET demanded price.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Developer, meet market. Market meet developer. Dear developer, the market only WANT to bear a 5$ price. Maybe it is your fault for having invested too much money without studying the market first.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
You're fine with "gook", "kraut" and "haji" but can't bring yourself to say "nigger"?
Don't get me wrong. I think racism is despicable, but surely referencing the term like that shouldn't offend anyone.
"Some are suggesting that overpaid developers are the problem and the recession will soon lower the wages and costs for complex apps."
Will it lower the amount of time it takes to create these complex apps? All else being equal a complex app takes more time and hence it will cost more. But the question being put forth is. Can one charge more to an audience conditioned to believe that everything being offered should be free or 99 cents?
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
I loved seeing amigas running macos with a rom, faster than a real mac with async IO patches to the ROM.
Tho I saw corps using DTP on 286's too in 1989. Slow but worked, support came from one place.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Sure 6 weeks dev time, but developers dont do testing, so hire your own $5/hr testers, testing time can equally take as long as or more than dev time.
You can have 6 weeks dev + 10 weeks testing, or 15 weeks dev + 1 weeks testing, your choice?
Or go do it all your self.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
TFA is a totally retarded bitch-fest, to put it mildly. The guy states that the first thing they look at when trying to develop an app, is what price range sells the most units, then complains that there aren't large enough margins on it?
To say nothing of all the other comments he makes such as programmers costing $200 an hour for a several-month project. Yeah right.
In all honesty, this guy just makes himself look like a huckster, trying to make a fast buck from selling iPhone software at a big profit. That is not what the app store was made for. It was made for people to develop their products and be able to get some money for it, whether it's enough to cover costs, or perhaps make a big profit by releasing something that gets popular. The point is to develop a suite of items for the iPhone, in which it succeeds.
Personally, I hope people who want to exploit that with the express purpose of jacking up prices to make a lot of money, lose everything. Stop complaining about the lack of price fixing, and start concentrating on making a program WORTH $40 or more. iPhone users are hardly people without disposable incomes, if someone creates an app that is WORTH that much to them, they will certainly pay it. This asshole just seems to want to release the same rubbish at a much higher price, trying to exploit developers to create a profit off their work.
Though, if you can get $200 an hour off this idiot just to code iPhone apps, I say go for it.
You can charge anything you want on the Appstore. If you're saying people won't pay what you want for your product, then it means you've missed your target audience. You can't blame Apple if you're an idiot.
Don't cry me a river, harden the fuck up instead.
This sounds like someone is whining that they have a right to make money no matter what. I don't understand how it could cost upwards of $100/hr to develop something unless that's counting for the labour of more than two or three people.
I work for one of the largest independent game developers in the world. We haven't done anything on the iPhone yet, but a few guys around the company have in their own time. One sells his for 99c, another bloke sells his for 1.99 and another two sell their game for 4.99. I would say the production standards are ranked according to the price, but you know what? The crappy-looking 99c one that was slapped together in a week has sold thousands of copies and the others haven't. Is it the price or is it the fact that it's the most fun? Probably both, but he also offers a free demo as well, which I'd say is why it's so successful compared to the others.
iPhone apps are like ideas... there's an abundance of great ones out there, but only the ones with the good marketing to stand out from the crowd will make it. The iPhone is probably also like other mobiles, in that there isn't much money to be made at all by developing apps. If I ever get off my butt and find the motivation to make something for it, I'd be wrapped if it made enough to buy me a new MacBook Pro and LED Cinema Display. Anything else would be awesome, but that's because I already have a day job that I live off.
And once all the developers are unemployed or working for minimum wage there won't be anyone who can afford the phone so who needs apps? Problem solved.
For me its inability for developers to offer trial versions of apps using the App store. I'm not going to pay more than a few bucks for something i cant try before i buy. Screenshots and reviews just dont cut it for me, so how about Apple allows developers to do x Day trials. I'm sure its possible!
If I had some way to test the application before paying for it. I'm not about to pay lots of money for something blindly...
Not many people are going to by a complex application for a platform that they may not choose to keep. Buying for a workstation is one thing, but people change cell phones a lot more than they choose their workstation. Also, the iPhone, for all its hype, has some severe limitations (no Java, no Flash, no cut-and-paste). Add to that the possibility that some new and sexier mobile phone is always around the corner and could have a completely different architecture that won't run these iPhone applications, and that leaves people with the idea that buying an expensive application might be a waste of time and money.
--
Luck is just skill you didn't know you had.
What they need is slowly learning Symbian C++ (especially after open source) and slowly start to ship their apps in _same quality_ to Symbian. Windows Mobile seems way harder for a Cocoa developer since it is all .NET stuff it seems.
When some of top quality apps ship of Symbian too, Apple won't be that comfortable with their decisions. A developer may say "So you don't handle the comment abuse? Remove my app from store".
If they all sit and code iPhone only apps, they give great power to Apple about their products.
That is not the marketing strategy of Apple now is it? Apple assures you of a great app, for $1. period. It is the market bully now, its shouting to its developers: this is the rate i'm going to sell you at. And behind apple is the huge crowd of mad iPhone users, constantly wanting to do something more with their iPhone. Lose them, and you lose a chance to make a million bucks. Free market with apple constraints, served on a plate for you.
Can you see the monster Apple? Microsoft hasn't got balls this big now.
http://monkeynesianeconomics.blogspot.com/
I develop for the iPhone. What restrictions are there in iPhone development that I'm missing? Why do people keep saying it is restricted?
What apps can you create in Android that you can't on the iPhone? I have yet to see any.
You are not required to release your software for 99 cents or free. You can charge whatever you want. The fact someone may release a similar product for less is called the free market.
Ones that want to buy their own hardware at a reasonable price?
I read the article about low price of killer app. I think Apple should come up with additional payment method. Now iPhone App still sell as a "product", there's no "service" App yet. But I think people might not like the idea of "service" app. Therefore I think, we should find the middle ground, call it "lease", you pay a small amount and get a full functional program. Every day you use it, App store deduct a small amount from your account. User should be able to choose the amount range from 1 cent a day to $10 a day. So if the user would like to keep the app, they continue to use it and pay the "lease" amount, until the "lease" has been match the "product" price. There might be some interest involve. So people can test full functional software without paying the premium in front. And developer can still get their portion of the money if the user really like the app and would like to use it and keep it for a while. Of course, if the user decided the app is not good, they can just remove the app, and the app store stop the lease payment... I hope my idea will be applied to app store evey where.
No, "it does CMYK seps" is actually far from "all you need", it doesn't even touch the surface. How do you do UCR? How do you apply ICC profiles? How do you do e.g. consistent skin tone correction on a huge bunch of widely differently lit fashion shots without trial & error? How do you generate and preflight standards-compliant PDF X/3 with embedded ICC information, and have them printed consistently on whatever offset or digital printing press the printer has?
Basically: How do you guarantee standards-conform, color-proof output without even knowing where your data will be produced?
I know that PDF generation isn't the domain of the GIMP, but when we're talking image manipulation, we talk output, and if we talk output, we talk *at least* X/3. Good luck implementing a color proof workflow with the GIMP. If you can do it, let me know how you pull this off. I like Linux and all, but there's a reason why there's Macs everywhere in pre-press. And it's not "ooooh shiny".
We've got Macs here, but there are Windows shops who deliver high quality output, too. They just tend to have difficulties finding able employees, as the good ones reject fighting with Windows instead of getting stuff done. ;)
Who is General Failure and why is he reading my hard disk?
ha ha, telling a Linux cult member that OSX has all they want and more is a waste of time. The free and open software argument is nice and all, but it just doesn't make sense for every application, as with everything in life you suffer with such a hardline approach.
Hardware / vendor lock ins ... nobody cares. Developers don't seem to care either since OSX development tools and documentation are FREE. get it?
Drink the free kool aid my linux desktop friends... Rick the bearded freak has whipped up a new batch.
I think most commenters are missing the primary focus of the author's rant. This is fair, because his letter is laden with subtext that is probably not obvious to people who aren't intimately familiar with the iPhone developer community. I believe that the primary thrust of his argument is not that he should be paid more, or that his apps can't stand on their merits, or that he is no longer in a position to play gatekeeper.
Rather, his primary complaints seem to be with the Apple-approved and required distribution mechanism for the iPhone, namely their App Store. The App Store severely limits how apps can be sold, promoted, and used. It does not allow for trial software, it does not allow for returns. There is no built-in help system or feedback mechanism. Ratings cannot be challenged. And the "top X apps" is segregated by "free" vs "pay" but not by different levels of pay. Therefore it is much easier to sell more copies of a $0.99 app and climb the charts, displacing potentially far better but more expensive apps that are naturally going to have fewer sales.
Hockenberry's letter seems aimed at encouraging or nudging in the direction of fixing many of these perceived App Store deficiencies. That is why it is addressed to Steve Jobs, and not to other developers. He isn't saying "stop selling your $0.99 apps," he's saying, give all app developers a fair playing field to encourage innovation and risk-taking.
The company almost went tits up after they failed to grasp that the proprietary nature of their designs was killing them.
As soon as their grip on digital music goes away, I really don't see how they are going to survive in the long term.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Hard to take something seriously when they claim the spreadsheet is why the mac is so great.
Wait, the spreadsheet was out before the Lisa. Which is the PREDECESSOR to the Mac.
Which pretty much makes the rest of the story drivel.
And, I have to wonder, where are all the F/OSS people now, when Apple Developers are complaining that low cost software is keeping them from selling their high cost software. What about FREE?
When is someone going to point that out? Awwhh... The POOR POOR apple devs (yeah, that's an oxymoron) not getting paid after screaming for so long that F/OSS is the ONLY way of the future.
Amazing, the economy falls apart, and LOTS of people advocating F/OSS start bitching about two or three dollars profit.?????
Just food for thought, and readying myself for troll status.
--Toll_Free
..some central controlling authority plans it better, and keeps the most competitive producers out of the market!
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Best. Example. Ever.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
This strikes me more that the High priced developers are more afraid than anything else.
Never before have they had to openly compete with smaller studios or freelance software in an open market place.
Before it has always been you walk into a software store and look on the shelf for (insert application here) and you only see the high priced developers software, So you pay the high priced developers prices, you don't in many cases even know equivalent cheaper software exists.
Now they are shaking in their boots because right next to their high priced application is going to be an application that is either considerably cheaper or free that offers the same functionality. They are now forced to deal with direct in your face competition instead of word of mouth within isolated circles of computer savvy people.
Someone said that High priced developers dedicate thousands and thousands of man hours to a project that (now with direct and open competition) they are asked to sell for ~$5, What they left out is they sell that same application hundreds of thousands if not multiple millions of times. In this case with no other production fees save apple skimming off a % of the sale.
Developers then seem to threaten the public trying to incite the fear that if apple doesn't step in and set up a minimum pricing scheme for software that the "killer app" will never come. stating that it won't be worth the time to develop it, Sorry but programming is quickly becoming a skill that is picked up by the masses like reading or writing.
I will assure you that it will come and its going to be at a fair price because its going to be competing with several other "killer apps" In a fair market. So bring your A game because I will also assure you that countless others are going to be bringing their A+ game!
The last thing I can assure you is that if you make sure that your software is High Quality not just high cost people will be willing to pay a fair price for it so there is really nothing to be afraid about.
The app store IS the killer app.
$0.99 apps = Choice .vs. Open source and that is Apple's kryptonite
it took PostScript on a Linotronic 300 (1,200 dpi resolution printing to silvered paper,) before the Mac took off and slaughtered the old method of getting images from the design to the printing press.)
Likewise, the Mac is almost ubiquitous in audio (not as much [Audacity runs on anything]), video and movie pre- and post-processing.
The visual metaphor effectively masks the RPN flow of StackOfOperands -> operation -> resultOnTopOfStack.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
I'm days away from releasing my game on AppStore, and all the while during development, I watched prices plummet. Very disheartening and demotivating. This happens initially with any open market system, and the thing that needs to fundamentally change is not the system, but expectations. Too many iPhone developers go into this thinking they'll be the next Trism and Ocarina. That's fine, but you'll probably also dive deep into disappointment, which turns to anger, and then to finger pointing. Get your expectations straight, and you'll do yourself less emotional damage. Something developers are also missing is how many people out there actually have the right expectations. A lot of devs do their apps because it's cool and they are fascinated with making software, beyond the money aspect. That's where the $.99 toys come from. They are the stones that devs with dollar signs in their eyes are cast upon. Forget trying to make your living on AppStore alone. You'll always hear about the few who made it huge, and the rest of us who are satisfied that we made something cool and where the income is all extra. It sucks, but if you want a higher chance of making it rich, either join a startup with stock options, or be the best. In other words, from here on in, you'll only make your living on AppStore if you are absolutely phenomenal, or phenomenally lucky. Otherwise, be in it for the fun of it.
Quite a few of us, judging by the fact that Linux still has users.
Bash, Apache, Perl, PHP, and Ruby do not a great OS make. You can install all of them on Windows if you want to. The fact that they're preinstalled on OS X gets a big "meh" from code geeks and techies, because we aren't afraid of installing stuff. I've largely forgotten which bits of my current desktop were preinstalled, and which I installed, and which I built from source and hacked a bit to make them work the way I want, and which I wrote myself from scratch.
And the parts of OS X that we can't get free in Linux aren't much of an attraction. The Finder sucks -- even many OS X advocates agree on that one. The Dock is flashy, but becomes inefficient very quickly if you use more than five programs. Xcode has a terrible, unutterably terrible interface. Time Machine? Meh. What else is there?
Well, some of my developers have built real stuff on all of the other mobile platforms. They all suck. Despite the issues with figuring out how to make money on it, the iPhone gets a whole lot of stuff right on the technology side. which makes it pretty exciting.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
The Google gPhone will most likely kill the iPhone. The gPhone is completely open, runs a more complete java vm than j2me, has a real file system and plugs directly into the Eclipse IDE. The learning curve for anyone with Java experience on the gPhone is almost nil, I know I picked one up and was able to put an app on it in a few hours.
As far as I'm concerned the gPhone has won. Apple and Steve Jobs _have_ to respond by opening up the SDK to Eclipse and non-mac platforms. Yep that's right if you want to develop an app for an iPhone you need an actual mac and the apple development tools. With Google and the gPhone its all open and there is a very good emulator.
All open-source fanboys should be thanking high-heaven for Google opening up the Android platform.
Sounds like Icon Factory is ENTIRELY clueless wrt developing for small mobile platforms, as in more specifically they are quite obviously WAY overstaffing their iPhone apps, and are likely targetting way more functionality than is necessary, expected, an din many cases even realistic to run on an iphone or other small mobile device.
As they're not making games, their graphic and other asset costs should be very low, and a single developer SHOULD be able to easily produce and support the product.
Sounds like the iPhone marketplace is the IDEAL spot for small single part(or full time) developer to release small apps that do some single (or few) functions very well. The guys at TaptapTap seemed to have cottoned to this, while Icon Factory is their poster child clueless "traditional" developer...
Except that the thread originator was similarly arbitrary which was the whole point. Sarcasm is still dead.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
One problem I foresee, is that even if a large number of quality developers suddenly become able to unload iPhone/iPod Touch apps for over $10, the lower quality developers would suddenly rush in to increase their own prices. Once again, the market would return to being flooded with both good and bad quality apps, causing a slowdown in overall sales back to current rates, but at a higher minimum price point. The end result... the lower quality developers benefit more from the market's price increase, while higher quality developers end up reliving the same problem of diminished sales and recognition apart from the rest of the "me too!" crowd.
8==8 Bones 8==8
People pay for good software. People pirate good software, too. Some people pirate good software in order to see if it's worth paying for good software. The iPhone is relatively pirate-free, due to it's DRM system, ensuring that more people are paying for apps than ever before. Unfortunately, without a trial-ware market, developers are forced to make lite versions of products, rather than demo-products that retain full functionality for a limited time, or whatnot. I think this actually creates a worse market for the iPhone, since many aren't willing to pay $20 for something that may or may not be decent. Mobile software, in general, is less complex than desktop version, and therefore, I think it's difficult to price any app higher than $20-30. Additionally, legal or not, many people in families buy one copy of a software program at home, and install several copies. Since this is not possible with the iPhone (at least out of the box), people aren't willing to buy an app for $30-50, and go around and buy another copy for the wife. This is really one of the first devices to feature such as large, DRM-hardware platform for developing software, so what we're really seeing is free-market economics and creative solutions for what will and won't sell. I paid $10 for spore, and it was a waste. I paid $10 for monkey ball, and it was a waste. I paid $15 for a voice dialer that was a waste. And then, a free one from Melodis just came out that was superior and free. It's not that I'm not willing to pay for apps. I've bought plenty of "high dollar" apps, and would have gladly paid more for them. But, the model of buy, even though you can't try, is what bugs me. But, more developers have been doing limited versions of apps, which has put me at ease. EA has a trial version of spore, and had I played that, I'd have gotten bored quickly, and not paid for the full version. But, pacman's one level demo rocked, so I bought it. Same thing with Reign of Swords. My point is, people are a lot more willing than you think to pay for apps; but you have to be willing to give away free demos in order to convince people to pony up for more spendy apps.
As far as I know, ringtones are not sold through the app store. This author states that "all that will be left will be ringtones and simple games".
Blathering idiot. Has the author ever visited the app store? Or found out how to buy a ringtone through itunes?
Once again, ringtones are not currently purchased through the app store. So concluding that "all that will be left" infers that ringtones are currently in the app store.
Bad reporting.
iphone apps are pretty much stuck with $0.99 since Apple users are loyal followers such that a. it's the same paradigm as the itunes store (0.99 songs), it's all managed through itunes, and the current thousands of apps are less than $3 so the bar has been set.
Once again, the obvious solution is to forbid developers from working too cheaply. I mean, how can I demand a high price for my complex, quirky app when someone else has the audacity to produce a better app for 99 cents? Sowing "you get what you pay for" FUD only works so far.
I'm thinking a software developers union. The union bosses would set prices, and consumers would be forbidden from using non-union-approved apps, on penalty of high fines or, you know, getting your kneecaps busted. In no time prices would soar, and we'd all get the full benefit of our efforts. Minus union dues and other applicable fees, of course.
And another thing. Software development tools have become way too cheap. When any pimple-faced geek can download a complete development environment for free, it gives them the impression that anyone can write useful programs. Compilers, debuggers and editors should be expensive, dammit, just like they were in the old days. And have fiddly license requirements. Software development should hurt so everyone knows why we're getting paid top dollar to do it.
Consumers? Hell, if they can't afford $79.95 for a fuel efficiency calculator, they can jolly well do without. They should be happy that their phone works as a phone.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
"overpaid developers are the problem and the recession will soon lower the wages and costs for complex apps"
Fuck that. "Overpaid" for what? If you hire my services you will be charged what I am worth to you - not anything less.
And this economy will not slice my rates down because it doesnt slice my expertise down.
Problem with programmers isnt "overpaid" ones. Its people in India and China and Vietnam and Estonia that take on work for the hourly equivalent of what I would get paid to work in TARGET or HOME DEPOT!
Fuck that. Charge what you're worth.
Gasp you might have to do your own marketing to sell your $10 iPhone application? Oh the horror. How can Apple put developers in such an impossible position of having to actually push users to use apps themselves through various marketing strategies (some of them free).
the itunes apps store front page is a dollar store today. it's where developers can pick up free money by pushing cheap junk. If you're not pushing cheap junk, then you'll have to attack the problem old school. Feel free to have free demos that end up on the featured list, and charge $50 for the full version. From my limited understanding of iPhone development and iTunes you can do this.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
I'm sorry, what? Are they complaining that it's hard to make money because there is competition? Hahahahaha. HAHAHAhahahahaha.
Music speeds up when you yawn, but does not change pitch.
Rubbish. If anyone comes up with a really useful app I would pay for it. Most of those you have to pay for are crap, so go for the freebies which are sometimes better.
Time Machine, meh? For the average computer user, it is a backup revelation. For those who care about backups, it's worth the price of the OS alone.
I also keep hearing the "Finder Sucks" argument, but as a non-techie, I've not been persuaded as to WHY it sucks. I can say ONE thing about the finder sucking...it freaks out when a network drive disconnects (like shutting the lid on a laptop). That does suck, but doesn't warrant the epic insults it receives. Perhaps it does suck on a technical level, but on a practical level, it is pretty transparent to most users.
Provide the functionality, I will buy.
Yes, II have a fair selection of free/cheap apps on my phone. But the latest one, Omnifocus, at $20 is worth every penny of it's price. I've bought the Mac version ($80) for it too and they sync flawlessly.
For any of you who are iPhone/iPod touch developers:
I would pay $100 for a program that allows me to replace my pencil and clipboard with an ipod touch for taking inventory at my tree farm. Contact me for specs if interested.
Third Career: Tree Farmer Second Career: Computer Geek First Career: Teacher, Outdoor Instructor, Photographer.
You run OS X on a Mac? N00BZOR!!!11oneelevenone!!11! *ducks*
I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
I have nothing against a "complex" app on the iPhone. But you're not going to run a 3D renderer on it. You'd be a fool to try. Office for the iPhone? Forget it. Sure, there's a lot of free crap. But there's a lot of "expensive" crap there, too. The kind of apps you need are "where is a good restaurant?" "Let me copy that and transfer it at home." Things like that. Some people may want Omnifocus or something, but MOST WON'T.
Frankly, the developer in this case sounds like the music industry when their business model turns to crap. Maybe the iPhone is someplace where you have to make the case for why this or that complex app is worth buying another copy of.
The iPhone doesn't need a killer app. It's not targeting the "laptop replacement" market that full-bore smartphones like Palm and Pocket PC are going after. It's targeting the much bigger "not really a smartphone" market that's looking for a phone, first.
I've spent about £40 - £50 on apps for my iphone and the most expensive ones haven't been the most complex, not by a long shot. They have, however, been the most useful. In fact, some of those simple apps are so simple I could sit and code them myself in a night, but that would work out more expensive for me owing to Apple's initial developer registration fees.
In such situations it's therefore more cost effective for me to pay that £3 for whichever useful application, saving me time, keeping the developer happy and hopefully giving the developer some financial support to continue making good, useful applications, which in turn keeps me happy.
I see way too many dev's making iphone apps assuming / blaming a lack of sales on the price tag of the application, at the end of the day if the application is worth the price tag, I, like most people, will buy it if I have a need or want for it.
- Dan