This guy seems to have a knack for leaving companies just before they get really big lol.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez
Does anyone here actually know who Trip Hawkins is?
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.
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.
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
Depends on where you live.
In some parts of America, that kind of salary for a software developer is pipe dream. In others, it's pretty much normal.
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 other (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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
Comments
This guy seems to have a knack for leaving companies just before they get really big lol.
Does anyone here actually know who Trip Hawkins is?
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 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.
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
Depends on where you live.
In some parts of America, that kind of salary for a software developer is pipe dream. In others, it's pretty much normal.
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 other (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.
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.
lol
You know what? I've literally never had a conversation with someone that quotes Bugs Bunny! This place must be Looney Tunes central!
You're more right than you know.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.