Slashdot Mirror


Sorry, Indie Devs -- Pop Apps Are the Future of App Store (imore.com)

An anonymous reader points us to an opinion piece by Apple blogger Rene Ritchie on the dim prospects for indie app developers, in the face of mass-market, big-name competition. From his piece: Big apps get all the attention these days, just like big movie, music, or book releases and indies get what little is left, when there's even a little left. The App Store is big business, and that's how big business works. [...] Apple could use its considerable power and influence to help shape the App Store economy into one more hospitable to indie developers. After all, those are the apps I love and the ones that dominate my home screens. But the truth is, even if Apple gave indie developers everything they wanted, it wouldn't matter much over the long term. It may help a few for a while, and a very few for a while longer, but the app economy and apps themselves are evolving. Brent Simmons has offered his opinion on the matter. He writes, The Mac has for a long time been overlooked -- first because Windows was so huge, and then web apps, and now iOS. For my entire career people have said that the Mac is a bad bet, that it's dumb to write Mac apps. [...] There was never a golden age for indie iOS developers. It was easier earlier on, but it was never golden. (Yes, some people made money, and some are today. I don't mean that there were zero successes.) And there's a good chance that many of the people you currently think of as thriving iOS indie developers are making money in other ways: contracting, podcast ads, Mac apps, etc.

14 of 103 comments (clear)

  1. Yeah, no kidding... by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It wasn't a "golden age", it was just a gold rush. And did people seriously think the "gold rush" would last forever? It's like any other gold rush, literal or figurative - a few in the first wave get lucky and strike it rich. Most of the people who actually made a profit were selling equipment or services to the prospectors. And after the individual prospectors skimming off the surface were gone, it took a large-scale mining effort to exploit the resources at a deeper level.

    The strength of indie developers are that they're able to move quickly with new ideas and on new platforms, but the new platforms don't come along all that often, and marketable new ideas are surprisingly hard to come by.

    --
    Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    1. Re:Yeah, no kidding... by jbolden · · Score: 2

      What you are describing is capitalism. Yes one of the main points in owning a company is to build a base to get acquired. A good idea product has to build a brand identity soon or it will be inundated with clones. Etc...

      It is a bit much to ask Apple to solve those sorts of problems.

    2. Re:Yeah, no kidding... by jbolden · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Stop redefining words. Indie means not working for a large company nothing more nothing less. Indie does not imply any position at all on distribution channels.

    3. Re:Yeah, no kidding... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes one of the main points in owning a company is to build a base to get acquired.

      As the Dot Com Bust proved overwhelmingly, companies that deliberately planned to get acquired by Microsoft — or Facebook, these days — often failed. It's not a viable business model. One of the main points of owning a company is to make money from selling product and/or services.

    4. Re:Yeah, no kidding... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's why small stock mutual funds work.

      I prefer dividend-paying stocks that pay out profits as dividends.

      If I can get paid 200::1 on a 100:1 shot of winning I'm taking that bet every day long with 1/300th of my net worth.

      In short, you're a gambler and not an entrepreneur. If you're using your own money, you're doing it wrong. A viable business model would attract Other People's Money (OPM).

  2. Still plenty of room left for Indies by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Lost in all of this commotion is the technical reality, that most popular apps these days are not really that complex. That is to say, there's no reason a small indie of even just one developer could not make and maintain a pretty compelling application.

    This has gotten more and more true with easier to configure and maintain server components, such that you hardly even need to be aware of how to properly write and scale server code anymore. Vast numbers of frameworks to accomplish just about anything you can thinks of help on the client side.

    Never has there been a time when Indies could compete against a company of ANY size.

    So why have indies been fading away a bit? Well to start with, I'm not sure they really have - I think there are still a lot of indie devs plugging away and making a living.

    I think all of the recent publicity about this is because it specifically indies living in California that are having a hard time competing against companies - and that is because California and Silicon Valley has become a vast echo chamber, seemingly incapable of thinking up really original ideas - or at least thought processes are so in lock-step that one guy coming up with an idea there means 20 others will at the same time, some with easier access to funding.

    The one thing aspect that has become important for apps now is they MUST do marketing, you just can't build an app and call it a day. To be a successful app writing business, you must act like a business and not just expect customers to come to you because.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Still plenty of room left for Indies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Never has there been a time when Indies could compete against a company of ANY size.

      You're just ignorant. An indie app can't pay half a million dollars or even $10K, in marketing in order to pay bots to download and rank their apps or even run a single TV ad, they can barely afford google ad-words.

      Neither Apple, Google, and now M$, want you to realize just how badly gamed their app ranking system is. Just look at "Flappy Birds" -- It was a shitty ripoff that paid a marketing bot to write reviews with markov chains (invloving thousands of instances of similar terms as "the devil", "insane", "addictive", "life destroying", etc). The success of the other apps by the same dev increased at the same time but there was no marketing force or cross-app influence (he paid for them all to get up-ranked by the bot army, and one got noticed). That's why as soon as Flappy Birds got to the top of the app store it was pulled by the dev -- because otherwise the shady marketing would be discovered.

      Funny thing is? A bunch of indie devs thought, "Holy shit that could be me! If only I tap into a catchy addictive mechanic!", and many wasted time making some cool fun games that were way better than Flappy Birds (and didn't even ripoff Mario graphics).... shitty mobile indie devs tried to replicate "flappy birds" success.but they never saw the light of day because they didn't have a marketing budget like the big players have.

      You have been deceived. The app rankings are gamed. When there are 10k apps that all do the same shit, each produced by app-dev slaves for a mega corp, then the "inde" can't compete because they can't get visibility. Sure the app dev slaves will quit the megacorps, but there is always some fresh fool to mine for lines, and it only takes a few hours to swap assets of one app and re-sign it as the megacorp's production. Apple, Google, and M$ don't care because if you pay the botnet to buy your apps then you're just forking over money for free (you get some back, but the Walled Garden gets to take its cut, and that's all they care about). Telling everyone how shit of a chance you have because of how gamed their market places are is bad PR for the walled gardeners.

      I wish I could be like you again. I miss having that sort of naive optimism. Sadly reality isn't idealistic, and your "MUST do marketing" fails to consider dollars, so it doesn't make cents.

  3. Vertical markets by jbolden · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Every time this complaint comes up I say the same thing. Stop writing horizontal apps. Indie developers can (and should continue) to focus on narrowly targeted vertical applications. You aren't going to write a better driving app than Google maps, Apple maps, Waze, Open... But you can write a better application for skiers that consolidate deals and account for reports of conditions. You can write a better app for hotel front desk applications to tie to the mobile phones of hotel maids in navigating which rooms have checked out vs. which have left vs. which still have people in them. You can write a better application for appliance installers which gives them information on which warehouses to pick up which parts in...

    There is still a wide open market for vertical applications. Horizontal is too competitive but so what? Vertical pays way better.

  4. Re:Disagree, at least for games by fluffernutter · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My wife is big into those little games.. and a couple of the in app purchase ones she actually had the patience to play and succeed at without making any in-app purchases. On two separate games, there was some 'mysterious corruption' and all her progress was erased months after playing. In one of those games she wanted to get it back so desperately she started poking around in data files, and she actually saw the words 'user refuses to pay' in one of them.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  5. What are "Pop Apps"? by edxwelch · · Score: 2

    and are they related to Pop Tarts in some way?

  6. Re:Disagree, at least for games by Mitreya · · Score: 2

    she actually saw the words 'user refuses to pay' in one of them.

    Was there also evidence of why the Illuminati caused 9/11 and keept cold fusion under wraps?
    Mysterious corruption is certainly possible, but there is zero reason for them to explicitly admit that they are doing something bad on client side.

  7. Xcode 7 opened it up by tepples · · Score: 4, Informative

    open it up so that I don't have to have permission from their dictator just to have access to the tools. [...] Even if I had a friend with an iPhone, I can't just install and test.

    When did you come to that conclusion? Apple's rules have changed, and it may have been since then. As of Xcode 7, you no longer have to pay $99 per year to install iOS apps from source code on your own device. Nowadays, so long as you own a Mac and an iOS device on the same Apple ID, you can just build and deploy the app for testing without any recurring fee. Apple charges the fee only when you submit the app to the App Store for review for the first time.

  8. Re:Disagree, at least for games by Dog-Cow · · Score: 2

    You know the anecdote is fiction from the point where he states his wife was poking around in data files.

  9. Re:Plenty of recourse. by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    What do you mean by 'lots'? From what I've seen, only a few percent of indie app devs on iOS actually make any money.

    Which is still a large number in absolute terms, since there are hundreds of thousands of registered app developers.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley