There comes a point where the number of apps you have to offer is no longer a selling point. I think 100,000 is definitely that number. Whether its 100 or 900 thousand, customers do not care. The only thing that matters to customers is how a particular, that THEY come across, strikes them.
An app needs to look like an epiphany. Its name should include its purpose, the solution to the problem it solves. The customer should be able to assume this from the icon and the name. From there, the app should live up to all of its expectations, or it shouldn't exist.
Quality > Quantity. Anyone with an iPhone or iPod touch makes that same determination within hours of owning one.
There comes a point where the number of apps you have to offer is no longer a selling point. I think 100,000 is definitely that number. Whether its 100 or 900 thousand, customers do not care. The only thing that matters to customers is how a particular, that THEY come across, strikes them.
An app needs to look like an epiphany. Its name should include its purpose, the solution to the problem it solves. The customer should be able to assume this from the icon and the name. From there, the app should live up to all of its expectations, or it shouldn't exist.
Quality > Quantity. Anyone with an iPhone or iPod touch makes that same determination within hours of owning one.
Exactly! How many of these crap apps do we ignore at the getgo and not even bother to examine? And how many potentially useful apps have been rejected by the Apple censorship board for whatever reason?
Isn't that what we also heard about the MacBook Air and the AppleTV?
I'll believe it when I see it. An $999 app tablet ain't gonna cut it.
No. No one ever thought, let alone said that. That MacBook Air was never a netbook, or a lite-notebook, it was a design prototype that they decided to sell. It introduced lots of concepts to the Mac notebook line that were eventually carried into the rest of them. It still exists for the few people that want something lighter than the rest.
AppleTV exists for the Apple users who have run out of products to purchase and would prefer to use Front Row on their living room TV, than other movie playing options. Niche product.
The tablet will not cost a thousand dollars. It will not retail for more than $600. If it does, it should never even be introduced.
I take comfort in the knowledge that Apple pays absolutely no attention to blatherings of wannabe marketing experts who seek to dictate what features and options an Apple product must have to succeed. Thank god for that.
I would point out that almost all the rumours and analysis of the purported tablet comes down on the side of it *not* being able to run Mac OS-X "desktop" apps or have a UI anything like a desktop and instead point to it using the iPhone UI and running essentially beefed up iPhone apps.
Also, my main reason for responding is just that it's tiresome to hear that same statement repeated over and over again, without foundation, without argument, and seemingly by rote.
It's the sign of a closed mind to not consider other possibilities, to never admit that one might be wrong, and to not seriously re-examine what your base assumptions from time to time.
Does anything actually cause an app to be no longer available? Is it a case that in 5 years time the same fart machine is still going to be there while the 2000th duplicate gets added to the list?
Or if the developer doesn't keep paying there $99 a year does it get removed. In which case at some point arnt we going to see the number of apps potentially go down rather than up. We all know while there are a lot of people making a lot of money there's a lot more who make an app and then it only gets downloaded 6 times. Surly at some point we're going to see people subscriptions start running out and not being renewed due to the developer being completely unsuccessful, in which case the number of apps would start to go down.
AppleTV exists for the Apple users who have run out of products to purchase and would prefer to use Front Row on their living room TV, than other movie playing options. Niche product.
.
You got that right- Apple users only. Too bad- Apple really lost the living room- big time.
Well, I'm disappointed. I don't want a 10-inch iPod touch. I already have an iPhone for that crap. I wonder what effect an "iPad" would have on future iPhone sales. For example, if I can stay with Verizon and keep a "simple" BlackBerry that's functional for work and personal life AND buy an "iPad" for all the other functions an iPhone offers - what's stopping me? In other words, will Apple risk losing a segment of the market that wants to switch to an iPhone but hates AT&T?
But what the hell am I saying... I'll probably be a first adopter of this "iPad."
It wont be a 10-inch iPod touch. You can't take a tablet everywhere with you like you can with an iPhone, so why would you consider it an alternative? The greater risk is that people with an iPhone wont see the need for the tablet, which is part of the reason why it wont just be a 10" iPod Touch. Lastly AT&T's exclusivity is nearing its end, we'll have to wait and see who else gets the iPhone.
What we saw in September was a concept video, and a very clunky, very early pre-prototype of the concept. This is not a "likely ... in development" device. This is in the concept stage. In the design world, there is a big difference between those two things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by knightlie
Exactly. That "Courier" thing was a CGI rendering of a concept, and just more noise from Redmond designed to steal others' thunder. It's not even a prototype yet, and I doubt it'll ever see the light of day. You might as well call the Starship Enterprise "in development" based on the same logic.
This is a good tactic for large companies. Vapourware can keep small companies from trying to compete and keep consumers from going with another product if they think you are coming to market soon. The fact that AI listed it as extensive pics of an in-development product is proof enough that this strategy works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147
300,000 apps eh? The store is getting more and more congested and there must be a better way to organize and get exposure to the smaller developers.
Their organization change will be reactive to a growing App Store, but there are plenty of websites that showcase apps that their editors find interesting or useful. That is the how I find new apps. I never peruse the App Store looking for new apps.
There comes a point where the number of apps you have to offer is no longer a selling point. I think 100,000 is definitely that number. Whether its 100 or 900 thousand, customers do not care. The only thing that matters to customers is how a particular, that THEY come across, strikes them.
An app needs to look like an epiphany. Its name should include its purpose, the solution to the problem it solves. The customer should be able to assume this from the icon and the name. From there, the app should live up to all of its expectations, or it shouldn't exist.
Quality > Quantity. Anyone with an iPhone or iPod touch makes that same determination within hours of owning one.
You're being quite presumptuous in pretending to know what matters to customers.
I for one care and will continue to care just how many apps there are in the App Store, mainly because it is and will remain an objective yardstick with which to compare Apple to its competition. Having said that, I also know it's by far not the only yardstick to use, but there's no reason to throw it out just because YOU find it irrelevant.
Quality of course matters, but NOT as a qualification for "entry". Quality, if it is there, will result in better word of mouth, and will therefore benefit viability.
Apple has an advantage based on sheer numbers of apps, but the fact (or opinion) that many of those are free and/or junk does not completely negate the value of the statistic. It is at the very least an indicator of the level in interest on the part of developers and customers in Apple's particular venture.
Most likely in more cases than not, this "interest" can be and is linked to MONEY for developers and for Apple. This is a very good thing.
do you really believe that AT&T pays Apple $700 for a phone that costs $180 to produce?
The iSuppli costs are estimated on components and I think some licenses and manufacturing. It doesn?t account for R&D, packing, or every other cost that is applied to get a product to market, not to mention any profit. The difference between revenue, gross profit and net profit is proof enough that iSuppli?s numbers aren?t the actual cost of the device.
On the topic of AT&T?s cost, companies pay a wholesale cost for a product that is lower than the retail price (as you already know), but oft overlooked is that contractual exclusivity would likely negate this and make it more than the typical wholesale cost. AT&T gets the the iPhone to itself and they pay Apple handsomely for that benefit. This may not a per unit price increase but a flat upfront payment, some trade off, or some other payment type.
There comes a point where the number of apps you have to offer is no longer a selling point. I think 100,000 is definitely that number. Whether its 100 or 900 thousand, customers do not care. The only thing that matters to customers is how a particular, that THEY come across, strikes them.
Seems to me that higher numbers are better, as they increase the chance of finding an app you like. Of course, that would be predicated on Apple significantly improving the App Store's interface and search.
Comments
So you say, ... on every single thread for months now.
And he's right.
And he's right.
How exactly would you know?
An app needs to look like an epiphany. Its name should include its purpose, the solution to the problem it solves. The customer should be able to assume this from the icon and the name. From there, the app should live up to all of its expectations, or it shouldn't exist.
Quality > Quantity. Anyone with an iPhone or iPod touch makes that same determination within hours of owning one.
There comes a point where the number of apps you have to offer is no longer a selling point. I think 100,000 is definitely that number. Whether its 100 or 900 thousand, customers do not care. The only thing that matters to customers is how a particular, that THEY come across, strikes them.
An app needs to look like an epiphany. Its name should include its purpose, the solution to the problem it solves. The customer should be able to assume this from the icon and the name. From there, the app should live up to all of its expectations, or it shouldn't exist.
Quality > Quantity. Anyone with an iPhone or iPod touch makes that same determination within hours of owning one.
Exactly! How many of these crap apps do we ignore at the getgo and not even bother to examine? And how many potentially useful apps have been rejected by the Apple censorship board for whatever reason?
Isn't that what we also heard about the MacBook Air and the AppleTV?
I'll believe it when I see it. An $999 app tablet ain't gonna cut it.
No. No one ever thought, let alone said that. That MacBook Air was never a netbook, or a lite-notebook, it was a design prototype that they decided to sell. It introduced lots of concepts to the Mac notebook line that were eventually carried into the rest of them. It still exists for the few people that want something lighter than the rest.
AppleTV exists for the Apple users who have run out of products to purchase and would prefer to use Front Row on their living room TV, than other movie playing options. Niche product.
The tablet will not cost a thousand dollars. It will not retail for more than $600. If it does, it should never even be introduced.
How exactly would you know?
I take comfort in the knowledge that Apple pays absolutely no attention to blatherings of wannabe marketing experts who seek to dictate what features and options an Apple product must have to succeed. Thank god for that.
And he's right.
Well we'll see very soon now anyway.
I would point out that almost all the rumours and analysis of the purported tablet comes down on the side of it *not* being able to run Mac OS-X "desktop" apps or have a UI anything like a desktop and instead point to it using the iPhone UI and running essentially beefed up iPhone apps.
Also, my main reason for responding is just that it's tiresome to hear that same statement repeated over and over again, without foundation, without argument, and seemingly by rote.
It's the sign of a closed mind to not consider other possibilities, to never admit that one might be wrong, and to not seriously re-examine what your base assumptions from time to time.
Or if the developer doesn't keep paying there $99 a year does it get removed. In which case at some point arnt we going to see the number of apps potentially go down rather than up. We all know while there are a lot of people making a lot of money there's a lot more who make an app and then it only gets downloaded 6 times. Surly at some point we're going to see people subscriptions start running out and not being renewed due to the developer being completely unsuccessful, in which case the number of apps would start to go down.
The tablet will not cost a thousand dollars. It will not retail for more than $600. If it does, it should never even be introduced.
Really? My iphone cost $700 and can barely multi-task (that is if you even consider listening to music an actual task).
So all that for $600- interesting. Read and edit pdfs- spreadsheets, wordprocessing etc? Print drivers- everything?
AppleTV exists for the Apple users who have run out of products to purchase and would prefer to use Front Row on their living room TV, than other movie playing options. Niche product.
.
You got that right- Apple users only. Too bad- Apple really lost the living room- big time.
3 years and Meh.
Where I work there are about 20 employees, 15 have the iPhone.
If you would put all our apps together, 75% would be the same and the total would be less then 100 different apps I figure.
So out of 100000 apps. About 100 are used here.
This is not scientific or anything, but still. Alot of apps are just useless.
If it doesn't exist, they should implement some kind of prescription service for devs. Pay each month, you stay.
If you don't pay, You are out.
If you downloaded an app that got canceled, it would still be on your phone but it would be gone from the Appstore.
My 0.02
So true about bad apps.
Where I work there are about 20 employees, 15 have the iPhone.
If you would put all our apps together, 75% would be the same and the total would be less then 100 different apps I figure.
So out of 100000 apps. About 100 are used here.
This is not scientific or anything but still. Alot of apps are just useless.
If it doesn't exist, they should implement some kind of prescription service for devs. Pay each month, you stay.
If you don't pay, You are out.
If you downloaded an app, it would still be on your phone but it would be gone from the Appstore.
My 0.02
Quality not Quantity. That's always been my motto.
Well, I'm disappointed. I don't want a 10-inch iPod touch. I already have an iPhone for that crap. I wonder what effect an "iPad" would have on future iPhone sales. For example, if I can stay with Verizon and keep a "simple" BlackBerry that's functional for work and personal life AND buy an "iPad" for all the other functions an iPhone offers - what's stopping me? In other words, will Apple risk losing a segment of the market that wants to switch to an iPhone but hates AT&T?
But what the hell am I saying... I'll probably be a first adopter of this "iPad."
It wont be a 10-inch iPod touch. You can't take a tablet everywhere with you like you can with an iPhone, so why would you consider it an alternative? The greater risk is that people with an iPhone wont see the need for the tablet, which is part of the reason why it wont just be a 10" iPod Touch. Lastly AT&T's exclusivity is nearing its end, we'll have to wait and see who else gets the iPhone.
You might as well call the Starship Enterprise "in development" based on the same logic.
They actually built the Enterprise at a secret Air Force base in Arizona.
Sorry, I need to shoot all of you now. Please line up against the wall.
What we saw in September was a concept video, and a very clunky, very early pre-prototype of the concept. This is not a "likely ... in development" device. This is in the concept stage. In the design world, there is a big difference between those two things.
Exactly. That "Courier" thing was a CGI rendering of a concept, and just more noise from Redmond designed to steal others' thunder. It's not even a prototype yet, and I doubt it'll ever see the light of day. You might as well call the Starship Enterprise "in development" based on the same logic.
This is a good tactic for large companies. Vapourware can keep small companies from trying to compete and keep consumers from going with another product if they think you are coming to market soon. The fact that AI listed it as extensive pics of an in-development product is proof enough that this strategy works.
300,000 apps eh? The store is getting more and more congested and there must be a better way to organize and get exposure to the smaller developers.
Their organization change will be reactive to a growing App Store, but there are plenty of websites that showcase apps that their editors find interesting or useful. That is the how I find new apps. I never peruse the App Store looking for new apps.
Really? My iphone cost $700 and can barely multi-task (that is if you even consider listening to music an actual task).
So all that for $600- interesting. Read and edit pdfs- spreadsheets, wordprocessing etc? Print drivers- everything?
do you really believe that AT&T pays Apple $700 for a phone that costs $180 to produce?
do you really believe that AT&T pays Apple $700 for a phone that costs $180 to produce?
Apple's not the profit whore for nothing.
Also I never mentioned AT&T. If I lost it, that's my cost to replace it. That there is no doubt.
There comes a point where the number of apps you have to offer is no longer a selling point. I think 100,000 is definitely that number. Whether its 100 or 900 thousand, customers do not care. The only thing that matters to customers is how a particular, that THEY come across, strikes them.
An app needs to look like an epiphany. Its name should include its purpose, the solution to the problem it solves. The customer should be able to assume this from the icon and the name. From there, the app should live up to all of its expectations, or it shouldn't exist.
Quality > Quantity. Anyone with an iPhone or iPod touch makes that same determination within hours of owning one.
You're being quite presumptuous in pretending to know what matters to customers.
I for one care and will continue to care just how many apps there are in the App Store, mainly because it is and will remain an objective yardstick with which to compare Apple to its competition. Having said that, I also know it's by far not the only yardstick to use, but there's no reason to throw it out just because YOU find it irrelevant.
Quality of course matters, but NOT as a qualification for "entry". Quality, if it is there, will result in better word of mouth, and will therefore benefit viability.
Apple has an advantage based on sheer numbers of apps, but the fact (or opinion) that many of those are free and/or junk does not completely negate the value of the statistic. It is at the very least an indicator of the level in interest on the part of developers and customers in Apple's particular venture.
Most likely in more cases than not, this "interest" can be and is linked to MONEY for developers and for Apple. This is a very good thing.
do you really believe that AT&T pays Apple $700 for a phone that costs $180 to produce?
The iSuppli costs are estimated on components and I think some licenses and manufacturing. It doesn?t account for R&D, packing, or every other cost that is applied to get a product to market, not to mention any profit. The difference between revenue, gross profit and net profit is proof enough that iSuppli?s numbers aren?t the actual cost of the device.
On the topic of AT&T?s cost, companies pay a wholesale cost for a product that is lower than the retail price (as you already know), but oft overlooked is that contractual exclusivity would likely negate this and make it more than the typical wholesale cost. AT&T gets the the iPhone to itself and they pay Apple handsomely for that benefit. This may not a per unit price increase but a flat upfront payment, some trade off, or some other payment type.
There comes a point where the number of apps you have to offer is no longer a selling point. I think 100,000 is definitely that number. Whether its 100 or 900 thousand, customers do not care. The only thing that matters to customers is how a particular, that THEY come across, strikes them.
Seems to me that higher numbers are better, as they increase the chance of finding an app you like. Of course, that would be predicated on Apple significantly improving the App Store's interface and search.