Apple expands App Store support for some; WSJ iPhone fees

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 33
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post


    Yeah, Rupert (Fox News) Murdoch talking about "quality journalism." Quality journalism is fast becoming a relic. Today, people want their news short and sensational. Nothing that makes anyone think--that's too hard.



    You're certainly not implying that NBC, CBS, and ABC are quality journalism are you? At least Fox News doesn't squash stories that don't support it's view. And, how about that Fox News - it has higher ratings in the evening than all three of the major networks combined. Yeah, they must not have quality journalism.
  • Reply 22 of 33
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,528member
    Murdoch displayed his visionary futurist qualifications when he predicted that the price of oil would drop to $20 per barrel if the US would invade Iraq. The only surprise is that he doesn't want to charge $5 per week instead of $2 for his Republican party equivalent to Pravda.
  • Reply 23 of 33
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by quinney View Post


    Murdoch displayed his visionary futurist qualifications when he predicted that the price of oil would drop to $20 per barrel if the US would invade Iraq. The only surprise is that he doesn't want to charge $5 per week instead of $2 for his Republican party equivalent to Pravda.



    Well put.
  • Reply 24 of 33
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by quinney View Post


    Murdoch displayed his visionary futurist qualifications when he predicted that the price of oil would drop to $20 per barrel if the US would invade Iraq. The only surprise is that he doesn't want to charge $5 per week instead of $2 for his Republican party equivalent to Pravda.



    WSJ is possibly one of the few niche journals which might be able to monetise content. You don't read the WSJ unless you've got money to invest and their content (and FT) is certainly 'premium'. Personally, I can get enough of that type of content free and so will be bypassing their generous offer. I love how, if you get a WSJ/FT/NYT article which is subscription only - all you have to do is craft a google news search to find the article and use Google's 'free pass' to read.



    Anyway - they (big-money-media interests) have bigger challenges ahead. Google's Fast Flip is going to make Google News feel like a walk in the park. Even the print guys must be squirming http://fastflip.googlelabs.com/
  • Reply 25 of 33
    I guess on January 24, 2010 the application gets deleted from my iPhone. $2 a week for less content, and an app that crashes frequently for me at least.



    I'm not opposed to paying for content... but I have not purchased a Kindle because of the amount publications want for eContent.
  • Reply 26 of 33
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nagromme View Post


    As a SMALL developer (well, unreleased as of yet), I'm glad to see the Top Grossing display. It combats the race-to-the-bottom 99 cent pricing by creating an incentive to find not the LOWEST price for you app, but the BEST price: the one that pays you more for you work without being so high it kills sales.



    I don't have a team, just me. I'll probably never be in any top 200 list. But I have a lot better shot at paying the rent if apps aren't rewarded so much for being just 99 cents. Top Grossing should be above Top Downloaded on the store screen, though.



    Unfortunately, you are exactly the developer this hurts the most. What would help you would be to make it easier for potential buyers to find your app based on its quality and function regardless of what it's priced at or how many downloads you have so far. This just makes it harder for you to compete against the big developers.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post


    Well the answer to all this is pretty simple. The iPhone is a money-making platform, and it looks like it isn't going to slow down. The laggard competition has ensured that Apple's App Store remains a growth industry. Apple is projected to sell a ridiculous amount of iPhones over the coming year. That is a clear indication of demand, which in turn is a clear indication of where the money is and will be.



    This isn't really a response, it's just a restatement of the obvious.
  • Reply 27 of 33
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    Unfortunately, you are exactly the developer this hurts the most. What would help you would be to make it easier for potential buyers to find your app based on its quality and function regardless of what it's priced at or how many downloads you have so far. This just makes it harder for you to compete against the big developers.









    This isn't really a response, it's just a restatement of the obvious.



    I know . . . didn't know what else to write. \
  • Reply 28 of 33
    The funny thing about this WSJ move... there are probably many more well-informed, intelligent (not to mention "insider") bloggers who, if aggregated correctly, would rival any level of reporting by the WSJ. This is the way forward for news organizations. People who know and love what they research and report on, and who can get an audience large enough to make ad revenue or sponsorships (including readers) pay off.
  • Reply 29 of 33
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Xian Zhu Xuande View Post


    Wah. Better that they offer direct support to some top sellers than none at all. If you seem to think they should be doing this for all developers simply because it's not fair, you need a reality check. They would need to employ and train a very large number of skilled employees to do such a thing and that comes with a high cost.



    Oh I'm not ignorant enough to think they could do this for all developers. I think its a great idea conceptually. My point was just where do they draw the line on who gets it and who doesn't.
  • Reply 30 of 33
    vineavinea Posts: 5,585member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    Unfortunately, you are exactly the developer this hurts the most. What would help you would be to make it easier for potential buyers to find your app based on its quality and function regardless of what it's priced at or how many downloads you have so far. This just makes it harder for you to compete against the big developers.



    No, he's right. Given the number of apps no small developer will generate the same exposure as a large developer in any way you rack and stack apps. Even using number of ratings and reviews because if you aren't grossing much you also won't have many total ratings or reviews either. Plus these can be gamed to some degree.



    Top grossing is harder to game, although I recall there are some folks in China willing to try using fake iTunes credit for you.



    Where top grossing does help is exactly where he pointed out: moving the average price point upwards. Your price ceiling as a small developer is what the big dogs are charging. If they averaging $0.99 you can't charge more even if your app is much better without taking a revenue hit because even fewer folks will risk your app vs the big guys regardless of reviews and ratings.



    However, if they are charging $4.99 to get their total revenue high enough to get top billing, that lets you charge $3.99 which works out a lot better all around.



    It's either that or shoot for a niche app...which is the better plan if you can do so.
  • Reply 31 of 33
    vineavinea Posts: 5,585member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


    The funny thing about this WSJ move... there are probably many more well-informed, intelligent (not to mention "insider") bloggers who, if aggregated correctly, would rival any level of reporting by the WSJ. This is the way forward for news organizations. People who know and love what they research and report on, and who can get an audience large enough to make ad revenue or sponsorships (including readers) pay off.



    It's not just content creation that the WSJ provides but the editorial staff who in theory makes sure that content doesn't outright suck. That they fail is human but that's where I see the real value added of a professional news organization: trust factor.



    Whether insitutional trust is better than indivdual trust is a personal decision and likely varies between certain individuals and institutions.



    For institutions you have to trust that someone will fire a bad editor to maintain quality.



    For the individual you have to trust that you know when to fire them from your reading list to maintain quality.
  • Reply 32 of 33
    I'm surprised nobody has mentioned that $2 a week is the same price as a full online subscription to the WSJ would cost, so I'd be shocked if anyone decided to subscribe to the iPhone-only option. It's just as expensive as the full thing, and WSJ readers are a pretty savvy population.



    I had an offer a few weeks ago for the online + print version of the Journal for $99 a year, and if I hadn't been a bit cash flow challenged, I would have done it. The iPhone deal looks really poor compared to that, since I have to admit that I enjoy perusing the paper version and reading breaking news online.



    D
  • Reply 33 of 33
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    "Quality journalism is not cheap, and an industry that gives away its content is simply cannibalizing its ability to produce good reporting," Murdoch said.





    Bwahahahaahha! That Rupert, always such a kidder.



    He tried it with his Fiji paper (Fiji Times) a few years ago, didn't quite catch on.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by vinea View Post


    No, he's right. Given the number of apps no small developer will generate the same exposure as a large developer in any way you rack and stack apps. Even using number of ratings and reviews because if you aren't grossing much you also won't have many total ratings or reviews either. Plus these can be gamed to some degree.



    I guess small developers will have to do it the same way as everyone else who makes a product, since time immemorial.



    Get out there and promote it, wear out the shoe leather, get it out to as many review sites as you can, use promotional codes and introductory pricing.



    I think what you find is that a lot of Apps are sold based on seeing friend's use them, word of mouth plays a big role in App sales as it does in iPhone sales.
Sign In or Register to comment.