Apple iOS App Store blamed for too many apps as Sony NGP is called "dead on arrival" - Page 3

And in the Amazon Kindle bookstore it is hard to find good books among all the lesser apps, err, books.
Who on earth selects music to buy by going to the iTMS or Amazon MP3 and expect the store that offers 100'000s of items to pick just the right 20 tracks for you personally? Music, as well as books, as well as movie, as well as apps, are bought on personal recommendation, be it from friends and family, the media, or by association (eg, same author/band/developer, or heuristic systems like the Genius sidebar, Last.fm, rotten tomatoes).

http://www.hark.com/clips/nsvdjzkfdz-what-a-maroon

maroon(slang); bugs bunny popularized it to mean "to abandon intellegence"

deleted

deleted

Fro the Urban Dictionary.

A term of derision often uttered by Bugs Bunny when referring to an interaction with a dopey adversary. It is a mispronunciation of the word "Moron"

I guess we are short on fans of Bugs Bunny and his mentor Groucho around here.

In any case, the term fits.

This is the best quote I have seen here as a logical answer to Mr. Hawkins. Time to stop complaining Mr. Hawkins.

HERE HERE!

There are some useful and innovative apps out there, mostly they're just time wasters though. Totally sympathetic to the notion that game development is being undermined and it's value in the consumer's eye diminished by sheer mass and ease of access. That's not something to mock or blithely disregard with a "Suck it up princess". As a muso I've experienced the shift to mass piracy and the resultant decay of what was a mutually enriching respect and mystique between an artist and his/her audience. It's inevitable, doesn't mean it's good. Nor does the fact Garageband enables 50 year old men to make sexually explicit club tunes and rake it in. Which is a weird way to end this rant.

lol

You know what? I've literally never had a conversation with someone that quotes Bugs Bunny! This place must be Looney Tunes central!

At least I understand the reference now, cheers!


I still don't understand the context though, maybe Multimedia could clear that up.

I said the paragraph saying the consoles were heading toward online gaming and have more recently attempted to address the needs of indie developers didn't make any sense since online console gaming has been around since 1998 (cheers Momus ) and XBLA launched in 2004.

Multimedia agreed with me (All of which predate the Apple App Store which started in Summer of 2008 less than 3 years ago) and then said someone/something was maroon. Was it directed at me? (doesn't make sense since Multimedia agreed with my statement) or at Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft for not being as popular as the iOS App Store even though they had a lead (also doesn't really make sense).

I'm certainly not claiming that the majority of apps are profitable - and I don't see anyone else claiming it, either. If you do want to go down that path, make sure you include ad revenues.

But since you seem to be unable to comprehend the simple English that I wrote, I'll repeat it. Maybe it will eventually sink in:

"Who cares? it's not Apple's job to guarantee them a six-figure income.

Apple created a marketplace. Just like any other marketplace, people are free to participate if they wish or pass on it if they don't. if they choose to participate, their income will be controlled by how good they are. it would be foolish (and bad for the market) if Apple arbitrarily started cutting apps just so other developers could make more money. If a developer doesn't make enough money to be happy, he's free to drop out (which doesn't seem to be happening, so the evidence is that developers are, by and large, content."

This is key. The history of gaming, especially console and computer, is that all titles were relatively close in price. Say $40-$60 and this didn't matter if a game sucked or was good.

So people were forced to sometimes choke down a $40 bad game. Now given the choice to kill some time, people are saying I don't mind paying $1 to play this game that might not be as good as that $20 game but will still be fun and let me kill some time.

We never got to see that before because the $1 game would have been $20.

I think it is changing for the better with opportunity for smaller developers once again, which is something I think most people thought was gone forever. Back in the early days of computing most games were done by individuals or very small companies. Kind of cool to have that spirit back.

If you make a good product you will likely suceed in the App Store. Sure at this point it will take some MARKETING to get you exposure, but you will not have to do extensive traditional marketing to drive all your sales. If your product is good enough and it gets noticed it will be driven to awareness and then take off from there.

The problem is most programs are not that good, and that is what developers have to come to grips with...

I still think there is a market in the IOS ecosystem for big time games that are more expensive. They just need to be really well constructed though, and very entertaining. They can't be twice as entertaining for 20x the money.

LOL.

You know what percentage of people make 100k-150k a year? You know what percentage of IT workers make that much? You know what percentage of IOS developers who would qualify for those kind of IT salaries?

Of course you do not, or you would not have made your post.

LOL

The only thing people take issue with is that he tries to paint this as some sort of problem or issue that needs to be addressed and it is not.

Nobody is out there thinking most IOS app developers are getting rich. If you make crappy apps like Digital Chocolate you will not make money... Nobody disagrees with this...

Trip seems to be implying that people who make crap deserve to make more money.

So, I read this as: I want premium system software on my bargain basement hardware! I would think you should know by now that Apple doesn't do things that way. Don't hold your breath.

Economics has always been meritocracy. It's the basic of basic ideology in business. Capitalism surely follows this premise. You have the skills, etc, you have a chance of getting the job. Your game has what it takes to win in the market place, you make money. You make junk, you lose.

I don't see that changing anytime soon. Surely, innovative Apple wouldn't even try. What Tripp's criticism is all about is he is mad that he lost his cash cow from the dictatorial monopoly the big game makers once enjoyed.

It is a good moment to start talking about the app store. It is just too big for the functions in the interface. Even if you know exactly what you need you cant always find it.

I wanted to search for an app that I knew Mobile Disc USB Hard Drive (By Dominic Rodemer) I tried to find it via category and search by word on both iphone and in itunes. I could only find it by searching for the exact match of the app but couldnt find it via category that I knew it was in.

Category search only brings a few titles and you cant "search more" or specially "show all"

What you discribe is that new apps have a really hard time to get into an established marketplace and might never find themself to top 25 because not enought people find it.

Another thing is that apple says it takes 30% of appsales because it promotes apps. What it actually does is only promote well established titles right now!!! How is it promoting new good apps that arent known??? There is a lot of these and 25 top picks or "apps of the week" doesnt cut it. it just presents like 1% of usefull/good apps.

This is true but the games market has evolved in an odd direction. The playing field is no longer even.

In the mainstream games market, only the mega-franchise games, with upwards of $40M investment per title are profitable. For a bunch of reasons, smaller titles from new innovative companies can't get a toe-hold. For a new original title, the cost to bring that to market is so great, there is just no possibility of it going into profit.

To use an analogy, it's like a rain-forest where a dense canopy from gigantic trees blocks 100% of the sunlight. No light gets down to the forest floor. Nothing new can grow down there. If you are the holder of a megafranchise, then its great. But I would argue that it's become a barrier to innovation and enterprise.

This is different in the download market, ( XBLA / App Store / Steam ) - Small vendors can and do break in and make profitable titles.


C.

True. But people like Tripp and the Sonys of gaming have their style and definition of meritocracy. They have been fertilizing those trees for years. Innovation like Apple's App Stores serve to prune those trees until they become irrelevant. Apple restores the definition of meritocracy for the masses.

It's Apple's gift to the world of gaming and software development in general.

Completely missed the point of his post...

So go jailbreak your iPhone, install an emulator and run Mario. Not like it isn't possible.

No, I perfectly understood the point of his post. It will never come to pass through Apple, so I told him the only way it would be possible.


Identical reasoning behind it. Nintendo wouldn't sell franchises unless they no longer existed.

Apparently not. Trip Hawkins left Apple b/c he had wanted to run a video game company since 1975, but wasn't able to do it until 1982, when he had plenty of money from Apple's success. He left EA to form 3DO b/c he was interested in working on the next generation of consoles.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/featur...istory_of_.php

Also Digital Chocolate is far from a poor company as they have over 100M downloads and 25M new customers just in 2010. http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/12/...one-in-gaming/ Also note Trip saying he has made more mistakes in gaming than anyone heh. Nice self-effacing nod

I think it draws from the credibility one might have to always stand on one side of the fence. Obviously a site devoted to apple news is going to have an applistic perspective, I just wish it wasn't always so applecentric.

I feel like a point to be considered is what sort of software emerges in the appstore compared to "traditional" avenues. Obviously there are some factors that make our considerations complicated, such as licensing fees, etc. creating a ("false") financial barrier in "traditional" outlets, but I think overwhelmingly (and if you disagree I'd be interested in knowing on what grounds) the impression I get from the software I've seen for iPhone is success in "bite-sized" applications. Over-developed and/or overpriced offerings tend to receive less fanfare unless they're backed by the same sort of corporate presence that is put in an evil light by the article we've just read. It isn't an uncommon thing to see a major player's title pushed down to a 0.99 price point to perhaps "develop word-of-mouth" while disregarding what is certainly a small return on sizable development costs.

To make the point more clear, I'd say under-developed, lower-quality, "brief" games/apps are more successful and more encouraged by the "ecosystem" (to use the tagline in a different sense) of the app store and this is not a good thing. Weighed against the perceived-evils of $50-60 titles from EA et al. all you can say is the market dictates the value of it's products in more senses than one. Those $50-60 titles are as much a result of a "closed-ecosystem" and licensing fees as they're a result of sizable development costs... something generally lacking in appstore offerings. We've all heard the "race-to-the-bottom" grumblings, but the seeming result would be a "race-to-the-market" to put development costs in line with return.

Another point to be made is that major players are still in a transitional state in terms of repositioning themselves for "app" style development, etc. and it is only a matter of time before said major players make it improbable that independent developers can keep pace with their offerings in the so-called "meritocracy". I suppose we'll see.

As a brief aside, I feel that appleinsider tends to keep a less-biased perspective than macrumors, the other apple news site I frequent, so cheers for that.

I think what it really means, and it's not about being "apple-centric," is that companies, whether brick-and-mortar, traditional media, etc. need to learn to adapt to the changes and see future for what it is or is not, not for what they want it to be. It happened to Barnes & Nobles, Borders, and others (see the success of Amazon and eBay or the failure of these brick-and-mortar outfits to see the future and adapt to it fast enough). It happened to the record industry (see iTunes, the iPod, and other digital forms of media and how they have replaced records, albums, and other traditional means of attaining/storing music). It will also happen to the film and videogame industry. They need to see the future for what it is or create the future they want, because sitting back and complaining about what is, what is not, what will happen, or what should happen won't make it happen.

Agreed.

As Canute demonstrated, even a King can't order the tide to stop. These powerful companies are discovering that the tide is against them.

C.

@DeanSolecki

I expect AI to be Apple-Centric, but I don't see them as one-sided. If that were true, we wouldn't be able to counter the claims in the comments. Maybe the truth of AI editorial is Devil's advocate.

Apple's "bite-sized" gaming ecosystem IMO, is born, in part, out of necessity. The state of mobile computing memory and battery consumption requires tight code and eliminating bloat. Developers who pay attention to their market, know how to innovate, and give more with less tend to succeed. Profit isn't always the driving force.

The difference between Apple's brand of business meritocracy to innovate and create v. the business model used by "traditionally closed" compact gaming franchises has more to do with Apple's open and fair software development v. the greed of "traditional" game franchising.

Apple supplies free coding tools needed for anyone to succeed as a applications developer, while "traditional" game "Robber Barons" charge huge entry fees and walls to their closed franchises. Gaming franchises has more to do with greed than creativity, innovation, or customer satisfaction.

Apple's developer business model works to level the playing field. Steve Jobs has always insisted on fair meritocracy as his business model. This, IMO, has been the true reason for Apple's business success and brand loyalty.

The spectrum of AI's comments to its articles, from fanboy to critic, speak to Apple's brand of business model v. others and to AI's coverage of it. I don't see that as one-sided at all.

Sounds like the console makers are eating a lot of sour grapes.

You're more right than you know.

Looks like unknown good apps aren't really that good, now are they.

Works just fine for me and other users. The top apps always seem to be great to use and address everyone's needs.

It isn't Apple's job to advertise your app. Your app makes it on its own merits. Make it great and others will notice. The wheat gets separated from the chaff, as with most things in life.

Anyone in the software industry cares and ultimately consumers will eventually care.

The post you replied to also failed to take into account that the developer will also loose 40% of what they receive from Apple in tax and also assumes every app developer is also building the apps from their bedroom in order to have no additional overheads.

But back to the point of who cares. Apple have made it very easy for anyone to sell apps, however now we have people that are just doing it for fun, in the same boat as people with no business sense and some that do. This meant that the people doing it for fun priced there apps as free, the people with no business sense just kept dropping the price until they hit 79p and the others are screwed because of the first 2. So this is good for consumers right? No! If your paying a lot less for a game your ultimately going to receive a lot less. Good developers aren't going to work for less, there intelligent people that can do other things. So in a world where software drops to a few pounds you ultimately have very short games, and software with a lot of bugs.

I do see the issue with app discovery, but it just is not something specific to iOS. That's the software world in general.

There is definitely a place for a really great, thorough, app review site. Yeah I see top 10 lists here and there or some sites that are trying to get this idea right, but no one has yet.

If they do they will have heavy traffic constantly IMO.

The app store really is not great for app discovery, and could certainly still greatly improve in that regard.

But ultimately it makes allot more sense for there to be a full dedicated 3rd party site for app review and promotion.

deleted