Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
tips@gizmodo.com
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | Email | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
Email | AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor:
Jesus Diaz
Email | AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
Email | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
Email | Twitter
Sean Fallon
Email | Twitter
Jack Loftus
Email | Twitter
John Herrman
Email | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Email
Chris Mascari
Email
Danny Allen
Email | Twitter
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Email
Chris Jacob
Email
Comment Intern:
Nick Ellenoff | Email
Comment Account Questions:
Comments@gizmodo.com
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
10/07/09
10/07/09
The reason I hate the app store is because Apple have locked everyone without a copy of OSX out from developing for iPhone OS. Considering that the app store is presumably a big money maker for Apple as well as a major feature driving the sales of their product you think they'd provide a more open development environment.
Realistically not many people are going to buy a Mac specifically for iPhone development when there are dozens more open platforms out there. Essentially what they're doing is telling all the Mac-less potential app developers to go develop for Android or WinMo. Which is a shame as I have access to three iPod Touches and one iPhone I could be using as test machines but I neither have the money to spare or the desire to buy any kind of Mac right now.
10/07/09
10/07/09
Access to development kits is used as a restriction for developing on a platform. In the case of most commercial games consoles you have to buy a development kit off the console maker and (I think) get some sort of approval or lisence to develop for it.
Commercial games consoles though are closed platforms whereas the iPhone is supposed to be an open platform. It's open because they don't charge for or restrict who can develop for it.
Any "open" platform shouldn't restrict you from the most common PC OS. Especially when it restricts you to an OS that you can only run (officially and easily) on specific hardware. OSX and Macs are the most closed off bullshit I have ever come across, they're basically a big fuck you to anyone that has anything different.
You can't even argue that Windows is the same since you can install that on Macs now (plus this was never due to any fault on windows part, it was apples proprietery hardware preventing this) yet you can't install OSX on a PC (again officially and easily).
Also if you really want an example, take Googles Android phone OS. The SDK is free and you can download versions for Windows, Linux and OSX.
Honestly all Apple are doing is shooting themselves and Macless developers in the foot. I don't have a Mac, the app store isn't an attractive enough reason to buy one and Apple won't let me write apps for iPhone without one. Therefore I'll probably play around with developing for Android, as will every other developer who doesn't have a Mac.
It just goes to show that even though Apple are trying to move away from it (Intel processors, bootcamp), they're never going to break free of their propritery and insular ways. Apple wouldn't know the meaning of "open" if it came up and punched them in the face.
10/07/09
There are a lot of apps in the store. This isn't new. From this, a dev should assume that his/her app has to do something to differentiate the app and something to advertise the app.
A dev earlier in this post lamented "Even at $2500, it's hard to say whether the app will break even - without some attention from review sites (are you listening, Giz!?) and bloggers, there's really no getting that proverbial 'word of mouth' everyone seems so jazzed about..."
Promoting your app is not their job. If you want your app advertised or promoted, invest capital in doing so. That is a cost that you should have worked into your business plan. Also, your app does get reviewed - by customers. They are very fickle and the profitability between a two-star and a three-star app is likely huge. That should have been part of your strategy too.
The rules of the marketplace still apply. It doesn't matter if you're selling jeans to miners in the 19th century or if you're selling cars in the 20th century or if you're selling apps in the 21st century. It's a meritocracy, you need to fill a need, you need to differentiate yourself from the competition, and you need to get the word out. That's not a hard concept to understand. Make something good, needed, desirable. Tell people why yours is better.
I leave you with the wisdom of America's greatest philosopher:
Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded.
10/07/09
10/07/09
Find a need, fill it, differentiate.
In the 1930's, to compete with Ford, car makers decided to make different colors available for their automobiles. As Ford famously said "Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black."
There was a market need for cars in different colors. People like Ransom Olds found something in the market that wasn't being addressed. They filled the need. They differentiated.
10/07/09
10/07/09
10/07/09
10/07/09
Sorry guys by the graphic with this story is infantile, artistically shoddy and just plain cheesy and amateurish. I'd also bet that it utilizes screenshots from other licensed and copyrighted works.
10/07/09
10/07/09
10/07/09
..........Ok...........so what's the problem?
10/07/09
10/07/09
I am much less bothered by the fact that there are a large number of stupid apps, but that there is an equally large number of stupid people using those apps.
It kind of makes me lose faith in humanity.
10/07/09
You know what, you're all right.
10/07/09
10/07/09
10/07/09
I see something similar in the app store. It makes communication between developers and consumers much easier. The market tends towards perfect competition, and in the economics predicts that it becomes very difficult to earn a profit in the long run, in a perfect market.
10/07/09
I can't be the only one here that got in on VA, Redhat, Yahoo, and the rest and made a KILLING. If you took your winnings out rather than going long you did just fine. As with any "new" sector you don't just leave your money sitting there like you would do with GE or 3M or CAT or the rest, it's high risk and should be treated as such.
What drove the stocks so high was the market taking bets on "new technology", but the fun part was that you had to think like old people rather than a young whipper snapper. "Gee I don't know what this Linux stuff is, but the RH IPO did great I guess VA is good money too".. Shit man, buying a stock at $20 a share and making 10x your money in 2 weeks? lol That was a bad ass...
10/07/09
For every VA, Redhat and Yahoo, there were 10 Excites, Webvans and eToys.com. You CAN make money in a bubble, but you have to predict where the bubble will burst, or be friends with a banker and get in on an IPO. There's no rational way to predict where and when that'll happen because you're fundamentally making money on other people's irrationality. It's gambling, no more, no less.
I haven't stayed in touch with my old prof, but I know that Warren Buffet is managing to scrape by, despite being an apparent moron.
10/07/09
10/07/09
[twitter.com]
[twitter.com]
[twitter.com]
[twitter.com]
[twitter.com]
[twitter.com]
10/07/09
It also seems like the other complaint has to do with the restrictions on the app store, the review process, etc.
The conclusion seems to be that app developers should and are ditching the iPhone and should focus on developing for other platforms (webOS, Android, Blackberry, WinMo, etc.).
Presumably this would allow them to get out from under the approval process at the Apple App Store they don't like dealing with, but how do the other "app stores" address the more fundamental issues.
Are development costs dramatically lower for webOS? This might be a difficult question, given the lack of access that would prevent some of the really expensive 3d games from being developed the same way, but either way. Are the prices that different? i.e. if you developed a top flight game/app, can you get away with selling it for $15 or $20? I noticed in the WinMo app store story they mentioned that some WinMo devs were still charging those sorts of prices (of course, back in the day, most WinMo and Palm OS software used to cost that much).
It seems fair to point out this issue that developers aren't making the easy fortunes that some thought on the iPhone, but is the answer simply "come develop for Pre or Blackberry or WinMo or Android" instead? It seems like part of the argument is that since those app marketplaces aren't as inundated, there might be more of a chance for "instant success" like the early days of the app store, but if so, wouldn't that just be the same problem? A few people get rich but most find it hard to make their money back?
That's really the big thing I wonder about. Is the app store model broken? And by that, I mean the app store model in general, not just the iPhone one. If the argument is that this is only a problem on the iPhone, and all these devs that are complaining can go and make tons of money easily on Android, webOS, etc. then I think we will see that happen.
But if there's been a fundamental shift, and people now have completely different expectations about mobile app pricing (i.e. people will never tolerate the high prices that used to be standard for blackberry, Palm OS and WinMo apps), then it seems like there are bigger problems.
Personally I suspect it means that the only kinds of apps/games devs can really afford to do on ANY platform will be those that have small development costs. It seems pretty clear that the notion of spending upwards of $150k on development and expecting to be able to recoup that cost on ANY platform is probably a pipedream for most devs other than the ones who get lucky.
10/07/09
10/07/09
10/07/09
Next at 11: Beans make you fart!
10/07/09
10/07/09
10/07/09
[www.youtube.com]
[Money (That's What I Want) — Beatles cover]
[www.youtube.com]
[Barrett Strong Original]
[www.youtube.com]
[For the Love of Money — O'jays]
[www.youtube.com]
[Money — Pink Floyd]
10/07/09
10/07/09
10/07/09
10/07/09
And I think APple oughta lower their prices, because judging from here:
"Then [come] the expenses: $29,000 for programmers, $15,000 living costs, $14,000 to Apple, $7,000 for marketing, $5,000 for legal and administrative services, $4,000 for logo and Web-site art, and $1,800 in loan repayment."
What the hell? WHere does cost of living come from, or marketing?! I thought marketing isn't needed for word of mouth.