6 ms·

iPad Pro Has an App Store Problem

48 points by milen 11y ago

techsupporter 11y ago
I'd be interested in reading why neither Apple or Google have support for trial apps in their respective app stores. Microsoft has this in the Windows store, both for phone and computer and I'll grant that Google has a very quick and easy return system (push a button and it's done, unlike Apple). Is there a reason to not do it that I'm missing? My curiosity comes from practicality: I'd love to try out the more expensive apps on iOS but I don't want to pay out up front and then be disappointed and have no trivial way to say "nah, wasn't worth it." Even Target lets me show up with a thing and some manifestation of having paid for it then takes the thing back with minimal fuss.
- alanfalcon 11y ago
  FWIW, the refund system for Apple seems pretty quick and straightforward, even if it's not a simple one click process. Not saying it couldn't be better, but I wouldn't be put off trying expensive apps because of it.
  - jacalata 11y ago
    I have no idea how to claim a refund for a shitty app, so it certainly fails my bar for straightforward.
- peteretep 11y ago
  I'm not very price sensitive, but would buy a lot more software with a quick built-in refund. I've installed and then almost immediately uninstalled way too much junk to take the risk on a £10 battery app, for example, that I'd have gladly spent on the best one I found.
  - bearbin 11y ago
    Google does automatic refunds if you uninstall an app within 2 hours from purchase, which seems like a good system to me.
    - peteretep 11y ago
      That would work well for me. Don't think iOS does, or if they don't, they don't publicise it well enougj
      - bad_user 11y ago
        You can get refunds for iOS as well. You just need iTunes to do it. Do a Google search for "ios refund".
        peteretep 11y ago
        Sure, if you fill out a form from iTunes. The op was talking about automatic refunds on deletion.
        bad_user 11y ago
        I don't get it. Is this about laziness?
        jacalata 11y ago
        Would you consider it acceptable to have to fill in a form in iTunes to install each application? Why not, just laziness?
- frik 11y ago
  Many apps in AppStore/PlayStore already have in-app-purchases. So it's basically "Shareware" (a 1990s term) or Lite-version or a demo-version, and to unlock all features you have to pay once or per year. The difference for the developer is you have to maintain only one version with optional features, and not two different app-versions (demo/lite/trial + full version (maybe even with optional features))
- jamesk_au 11y ago
  Some iOS developers are using in-app purchases to provide support for trial periods. For example, a fitness app named "Sweat with Kayla"[1] (apparently a renowned female personal trainer) is currently featured prominently at the top of the front page of the Australian App Store. The app description states: Sweat with Kayla is free to download. All consumers are welcome to a free 7-day trial period. Should you choose to continue use of the Sweat with Kayla app, we offer a single auto-renewing subscription option: Just $4.61/week ($19.99/month) Is that trial period contrary to the App Store Review Guidelines?[2] Clause 2.9 says: "Apps that are "demo", "trial", or "test" versions will be rejected." Strictly speaking, "Sweat with Kayla" might be a "full" version, because you get the whole thing (at least for seven days). On the other hand, clause 11.9 says: "Apps containing content or services that expire after a limited time will be rejected, except for specific approved content (e.g. films, television programs, music, books)." Perhaps Apple takes a broad approach to this clause and Kayla's workouts and food plans were seen to be sufficiently close to the named examples of "specific approved content" to pass muster. It would be surprising if Apple had decided to feature the app without reading its description. Interestingly, the most favourable feedback left by those who have posted reviews for "Sweat with Kayla" appears to be gratitude for the trial period, which saved reviewers from paying anything before deleting it. [1] https://itunes.apple.com/au/app/sweat-with-kayla/id1049234587 https://itunes.apple.com/au/app/sweat-with-kayla/id104923458... [2] https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - tadfisher 11y ago
    The "7-day trial period" makes me assume they have indeed passed muster, as that is the minimum-length content subscription period: > Content subscriptions using IAP must last a minimum of 7 days and be available to the user from all of their iOS devices
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
- tonyedgecombe 11y ago
  I'm not sure trials make much sense when the cost is so low, I suspect you risk diluting meagre revenue even further.
jarjoura 11y ago
For our company, normal iPad usage has basically fallen to zero. It's unlikely that a sudden surge in iPad Pro users is going to regain our attention. Also, Apple's sort of told professionals to fuck off for a few years now while it focused on consumers. So I find it hard to trust them to do right by the needs of niche pro users. Time will tell though, so we shall see!
skc 11y ago
The very same author in her original review for the iPad gave it a perfect 10 for "ecosystem".
- venomsnake 11y ago
  It is no different in theory when the iPad was first introduced compared to the iPhone. But I think it is something else - the whole mobile market is stagnating. The beast is already too big for a company to manage it, there are little to no money and with walled gardens innovation is hard. The only breakout apps in the recent years have been various kinds of messengers or cloud services. For whatever reason nobody wants to write code that does stuff on the devices.
  - walterbell 11y ago
    > For whatever reason nobody wants to write code that does stuff on the devices. Few business models can afford a 30% tax. If you monetize externally to the device, this tax can be avoided. In addition, on-device computation generates less data for tracking, surveillance analytics and "machine learning". If Apple cared about privacy and app innovation, they would unbundle the 30% app tax into optional developer services+fees that totaled 30%. This would support a wider range of business models.
    - scarface74 11y ago
      "Few business models can afford a 30% tax. If you monetize externally to the device, this tax can be avoided." What do you think the "tax" is when you sell something wholesale to a distributor that then sells it to a retailer?
      - walterbell 11y ago
        "a" distributor (optional 1 of N competitors on terms set by market) = markup "the" distributor (mandatory 1 of 1 set of terms) = tax
cm2187 11y ago
Is anyone really using the ipad (pro or not) for producing stuff? I find it great for checking emails or browsing the web, clunky for typing emails (editing a text is where the experience really deteriorates), but I wouldn't use it for anything else. Without a mouse and a keyboard it's hard to be productive. It's dangerous to bet against apple these days but combined with a small ecosystem of professional authoring apps (compared with MacOS or Windows), I am not very bullish on the pro.
- Tomte 11y ago
  There are lots of quite sophisticated sketching, drawing and painting apps for iOS. As a software developer it's easy to mistake "producing" and "productive" for "coding", but that's only one niche. (MS Surface seems to be popular with comic artists, and even though they have a PowerShell at their disposal, I suppose they are using their Surface much like an Apple user can use his iPad.)
  - cm2187 11y ago
    The primary use case I have in mind is rather Office, which is also probably the primary use case for most computers. My experience with spreadsheet softwares on ipad is terrible compared with a desktop experience. And for word/powerpoint we are back to my point on editing something without a mouse and keyboard. There are some case in powerpoint where a stylet would be quite powerful (for drawing shapes) but in most use cases it is hard to beat the keyboard + mouse in term of precision, speed and small amount of effort required. I can understand how it can be used by artists for sketching but I would think it's more of a niche market.
- interpol_p 11y ago
  A lot of people have made games with our iPad app, Codea. Many have published on the App Store. In fact we had the distinction of having released the first game programmed entirely on iPad, it was great fun to work on. Although we used a Bluetooth keyboard most of the time. (Game is "Cargo-Bot") I also bought an iPad Pro and Pencil. It beats my Wacom Cintiq. Especially because I prefer iOS painting software — Procreate in particular — to Photoshop. Procreate can handle large layered canvases at a smooth 60fps, on far less powerful hardware than Photoshop. It offers most of the same features for painting in a nicer package. It's far cheaper, and they have supported the app for years. I have been a graphics tablet user for over a decade and the iPad Pro + Pencil is the best digital drawing experience I've had. I also kind of like coding on a software keyboard. Probably not for a big project, but it's what I go to when I want to build interactive prototypes. "Working Copy" is a neat Git client I have been using on iPad. I use it to read my code base for large projects and to manage my commits and pull requests. I hear a lot of musicians like the iPad for music production, but I haven't done much outside of GarageBand. I have no plans to stop using my laptop computer. But the iPad is a great screen for making things, even if you might have to take those things to a laptop later on to "finish" them.
rgawdzik 11y ago
If the iPad Pro becomes a replacement for laptops (say for children/teenagers), the fallout will affect tinkerers. On a iPad, children don't get a terminal, can't run their own programs, and need to convince their parents to spend $x in order to get a linux machine that has a Von Neumann architecture. In the worst foreseeable case, desktops/laptops become so rare that they costs tens of thousands of dollars. Children interested in programming will then have a massive barrier to entry. Really another form of making Stallman's 'Right to Read' a reality; instead of licensing debuggers, you make all mainstream OS's a non-Von Neumann architecture. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html http://www.codersnotes.com/notes/the-death-of-the-von-neumann-architecture/ http://www.codersnotes.com/notes/the-death-of-the-von-neuman...
- derefr 11y ago
  I don't see how that's a possible forseeable case, even if there is no such thing as a "personal computer" any more: tablets still have SSH software, and "tinkerer-level" cloud VM instances will still exist and cost no more than $5/mo.
  - venomsnake 11y ago
    > and "tinkerer-level" cloud VM instances will still exist and cost no more than $5/mo. So you are at someone else's mercy how much and what to tinker with.
    - derefr 11y ago
      No? You could buy your own server rack and stick it in your basement if you wanted. Server hardware isn't going away. But that's usually more expensive than renting a cloud instance—not because server hardware is expensive (you can get used servers on ebay for prices competitive to used gaming PCs)—but because cloud instances are so cheap.
  - rgawdzik 11y ago
    Assuming Apple will always allow programming apps and don't have a change of heart; it's their walled garden.
skrebbel 11y ago
As a happy Windows Phone user, I know a thing or two about App Store problems. 1) tech bloggers love to predict any platform's impending doom by any means possible, and app stores are great for that because you can draw all kinds of conclusions without worrying about real practical problems. 2) if you like the device and the core of how it works UX-wise, you'll find a way to make it do what you want it to do even if $perfect_solution isn't available (yet). There might be things wrong about the iPad Pro, but it's a damn cool device and I'm sure people will get productive with it.
jacquesc 11y ago
Not limited to iPad Pro. I've stopped buying apps from App Store after wasting hundreds over the years on stuff that looks good but ends up too buggy and I uninstall a week later (after paying for). Also rebuying the full 2.0 version of an App because the App store doesn't have an upgrade process. Seems like these are features that are Apple has gone slightly too far without. Ill be shocked if they dont announce these features finally at WWDC this year.
Kiro 11y ago
> One of the common complaints made by software developers who spoke to The Verge is that they can’t offer free trials of their apps as part of the App Store download process How is this an issue? Why not just put an in-app purchase enabling the full features?
- xgbi 11y ago
  Well, you can't give the user a taste of what the full feature set is like when you have an inapp purchase. What dev want is a way to have a full featured app that expires after a certain amount of time, not a limited version that enables all features over a paywall.
- tadfisher 11y ago
  From https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#purchasing-currencies https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#pur... > Apps containing content or services that expire after a limited time will be rejected, except for specific approved content (e.g. films, television programs, music, books)
binaryapparatus 11y ago
As a iOS/Mac developer for the last five years, I have seen steady decline in sales, developer quality and customer quality. Turn towards low level consumer markets that took place few years ago can't be mitigated with any amount of trickery to boost sales. Trials are needed but they won't fix the problem. Problem is that we all inflated the market way beyond its capacity and such bubble can't stay inflated for long. I have some six Mac apps in MAS and I consider that number too high -- some of them will have to go. On the other hand any other Asian based developer has 70+ apps, all at $0.99 and not worth the cost of the web page they are on. Apple loves to brag about number of apps in any of the stores but in order to do so they let any crappy app in as long as it does not break terribly. That drives normal customers away, then sales drive normal developers away. I don't see any solution, it is downwards spiral, unless Apple enforces 'quality police' to leave low quality apps away from App Store. And that won't happen.
- IBM 11y ago
  You're basically just arguing that there's too much competition. Unless you have a truly differentiated product you should expect prices to tend to zero.
  - binaryapparatus 11y ago
    Not really. Competition is good and I don't mind competing with any company that has not-crappy-app to sell. I am arguing about general quality of the apps in the store: if 95% of them are bad there is no motive for normal paying users to even visit the store. That's something enforced (or not) by app store owner, Apple in this case.
    - walterbell 11y ago
      Agreed, this is also degenerating on Amazon with some consumer products, low-cost clones and paid reviews. The cost of searching/discovery becomes too high and an entire category becomes unusable for purchase.
    - IBM 11y ago
walterbell 11y ago
Ben Thompson at Stratachery has several posts on sustainable businesses on the app store, including one on F2P impact on app store revenues and mobile ads, linked in the article. In another post, he notes the historical tension between Apple and ISVs, https://stratechery.com/2013/why-doesnt-apple-enable-sustainable-businesses-on-the-app-store/ https://stratechery.com/2013/why-doesnt-apple-enable-sustain... "… Jobs’ statement was completely driven by Apple’s desperate state and the fact that Apple’s potential users cared more about Photoshop and Office than they did the Mac. For Jobs especially, it must have been humiliating … that Boston keynote was at the root of Jobs’ opposition to any 3rd-party apps on the iPhone, much less app store policies that enable sustainable businesses. Never again would Apple be held hostage to an app that was bigger than Apple." Anyone who has invested in buying iOS apps knows the challenge of app discovery. The time to find an app costs much more than the purchase price of the app. But even worse is the short lifespan of well-maintained apps, as developers are unable to build sustainable businesses. We are left with apps from very small dev teams or from large dev teams that monetize elsewhere.

48 points by milen 11y ago

I'd be interested in reading why neither Apple or Google have support for trial apps in their respective app stores. Microsoft has this in the Windows store, both for phone and computer and I'll grant that Google has a very quick and easy return system (push a button and it's done, unlike Apple). Is there a reason to not do it that I'm missing? My curiosity comes from practicality: I'd love to try out the more expensive apps on iOS but I don't want to pay out up front and then be disappointed and have no trivial way to say "nah, wasn't worth it." Even Target lets me show up with a thing and some manifestation of having paid for it then takes the thing back with minimal fuss.

alanfalcon 11y ago
FWIW, the refund system for Apple seems pretty quick and straightforward, even if it's not a simple one click process. Not saying it couldn't be better, but I wouldn't be put off trying expensive apps because of it.
- jacalata 11y ago
  I have no idea how to claim a refund for a shitty app, so it certainly fails my bar for straightforward.
peteretep 11y ago
I'm not very price sensitive, but would buy a lot more software with a quick built-in refund. I've installed and then almost immediately uninstalled way too much junk to take the risk on a £10 battery app, for example, that I'd have gladly spent on the best one I found.
- bearbin 11y ago
  Google does automatic refunds if you uninstall an app within 2 hours from purchase, which seems like a good system to me.
  - peteretep 11y ago
    That would work well for me. Don't think iOS does, or if they don't, they don't publicise it well enougj
    - bad_user 11y ago
      You can get refunds for iOS as well. You just need iTunes to do it. Do a Google search for "ios refund".
      - peteretep 11y ago
        Sure, if you fill out a form from iTunes. The op was talking about automatic refunds on deletion.
        bad_user 11y ago
        I don't get it. Is this about laziness?
        jacalata 11y ago
        Would you consider it acceptable to have to fill in a form in iTunes to install each application? Why not, just laziness?
frik 11y ago
Many apps in AppStore/PlayStore already have in-app-purchases. So it's basically "Shareware" (a 1990s term) or Lite-version or a demo-version, and to unlock all features you have to pay once or per year. The difference for the developer is you have to maintain only one version with optional features, and not two different app-versions (demo/lite/trial + full version (maybe even with optional features))
jamesk_au 11y ago
Some iOS developers are using in-app purchases to provide support for trial periods. For example, a fitness app named "Sweat with Kayla"[1] (apparently a renowned female personal trainer) is currently featured prominently at the top of the front page of the Australian App Store. The app description states: Sweat with Kayla is free to download. All consumers are welcome to a free 7-day trial period. Should you choose to continue use of the Sweat with Kayla app, we offer a single auto-renewing subscription option: Just $4.61/week ($19.99/month) Is that trial period contrary to the App Store Review Guidelines?[2] Clause 2.9 says: "Apps that are "demo", "trial", or "test" versions will be rejected." Strictly speaking, "Sweat with Kayla" might be a "full" version, because you get the whole thing (at least for seven days). On the other hand, clause 11.9 says: "Apps containing content or services that expire after a limited time will be rejected, except for specific approved content (e.g. films, television programs, music, books)." Perhaps Apple takes a broad approach to this clause and Kayla's workouts and food plans were seen to be sufficiently close to the named examples of "specific approved content" to pass muster. It would be surprising if Apple had decided to feature the app without reading its description. Interestingly, the most favourable feedback left by those who have posted reviews for "Sweat with Kayla" appears to be gratitude for the trial period, which saved reviewers from paying anything before deleting it. [1] https://itunes.apple.com/au/app/sweat-with-kayla/id1049234587 https://itunes.apple.com/au/app/sweat-with-kayla/id104923458... [2] https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- tadfisher 11y ago
  The "7-day trial period" makes me assume they have indeed passed muster, as that is the minimum-length content subscription period: > Content subscriptions using IAP must last a minimum of 7 days and be available to the user from all of their iOS devices
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
tonyedgecombe 11y ago
I'm not sure trials make much sense when the cost is so low, I suspect you risk diluting meagre revenue even further.

jarjoura 11y ago

For our company, normal iPad usage has basically fallen to zero. It's unlikely that a sudden surge in iPad Pro users is going to regain our attention. Also, Apple's sort of told professionals to fuck off for a few years now while it focused on consumers. So I find it hard to trust them to do right by the needs of niche pro users. Time will tell though, so we shall see!

skc 11y ago

The very same author in her original review for the iPad gave it a perfect 10 for "ecosystem".

venomsnake 11y ago
It is no different in theory when the iPad was first introduced compared to the iPhone. But I think it is something else - the whole mobile market is stagnating. The beast is already too big for a company to manage it, there are little to no money and with walled gardens innovation is hard. The only breakout apps in the recent years have been various kinds of messengers or cloud services. For whatever reason nobody wants to write code that does stuff on the devices.
- walterbell 11y ago
  > For whatever reason nobody wants to write code that does stuff on the devices. Few business models can afford a 30% tax. If you monetize externally to the device, this tax can be avoided. In addition, on-device computation generates less data for tracking, surveillance analytics and "machine learning". If Apple cared about privacy and app innovation, they would unbundle the 30% app tax into optional developer services+fees that totaled 30%. This would support a wider range of business models.
  - scarface74 11y ago
    "Few business models can afford a 30% tax. If you monetize externally to the device, this tax can be avoided." What do you think the "tax" is when you sell something wholesale to a distributor that then sells it to a retailer?
    - walterbell 11y ago
      "a" distributor (optional 1 of N competitors on terms set by market) = markup "the" distributor (mandatory 1 of 1 set of terms) = tax

cm2187 11y ago

Is anyone really using the ipad (pro or not) for producing stuff? I find it great for checking emails or browsing the web, clunky for typing emails (editing a text is where the experience really deteriorates), but I wouldn't use it for anything else. Without a mouse and a keyboard it's hard to be productive. It's dangerous to bet against apple these days but combined with a small ecosystem of professional authoring apps (compared with MacOS or Windows), I am not very bullish on the pro.

Tomte 11y ago
There are lots of quite sophisticated sketching, drawing and painting apps for iOS. As a software developer it's easy to mistake "producing" and "productive" for "coding", but that's only one niche. (MS Surface seems to be popular with comic artists, and even though they have a PowerShell at their disposal, I suppose they are using their Surface much like an Apple user can use his iPad.)
- cm2187 11y ago
  The primary use case I have in mind is rather Office, which is also probably the primary use case for most computers. My experience with spreadsheet softwares on ipad is terrible compared with a desktop experience. And for word/powerpoint we are back to my point on editing something without a mouse and keyboard. There are some case in powerpoint where a stylet would be quite powerful (for drawing shapes) but in most use cases it is hard to beat the keyboard + mouse in term of precision, speed and small amount of effort required. I can understand how it can be used by artists for sketching but I would think it's more of a niche market.
interpol_p 11y ago
A lot of people have made games with our iPad app, Codea. Many have published on the App Store. In fact we had the distinction of having released the first game programmed entirely on iPad, it was great fun to work on. Although we used a Bluetooth keyboard most of the time. (Game is "Cargo-Bot") I also bought an iPad Pro and Pencil. It beats my Wacom Cintiq. Especially because I prefer iOS painting software — Procreate in particular — to Photoshop. Procreate can handle large layered canvases at a smooth 60fps, on far less powerful hardware than Photoshop. It offers most of the same features for painting in a nicer package. It's far cheaper, and they have supported the app for years. I have been a graphics tablet user for over a decade and the iPad Pro + Pencil is the best digital drawing experience I've had. I also kind of like coding on a software keyboard. Probably not for a big project, but it's what I go to when I want to build interactive prototypes. "Working Copy" is a neat Git client I have been using on iPad. I use it to read my code base for large projects and to manage my commits and pull requests. I hear a lot of musicians like the iPad for music production, but I haven't done much outside of GarageBand. I have no plans to stop using my laptop computer. But the iPad is a great screen for making things, even if you might have to take those things to a laptop later on to "finish" them.

rgawdzik 11y ago

If the iPad Pro becomes a replacement for laptops (say for children/teenagers), the fallout will affect tinkerers. On a iPad, children don't get a terminal, can't run their own programs, and need to convince their parents to spend $x in order to get a linux machine that has a Von Neumann architecture. In the worst foreseeable case, desktops/laptops become so rare that they costs tens of thousands of dollars. Children interested in programming will then have a massive barrier to entry. Really another form of making Stallman's 'Right to Read' a reality; instead of licensing debuggers, you make all mainstream OS's a non-Von Neumann architecture. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html http://www.codersnotes.com/notes/the-death-of-the-von-neumann-architecture/ http://www.codersnotes.com/notes/the-death-of-the-von-neuman...

derefr 11y ago
I don't see how that's a possible forseeable case, even if there is no such thing as a "personal computer" any more: tablets still have SSH software, and "tinkerer-level" cloud VM instances will still exist and cost no more than $5/mo.
- venomsnake 11y ago
  > and "tinkerer-level" cloud VM instances will still exist and cost no more than $5/mo. So you are at someone else's mercy how much and what to tinker with.
  - derefr 11y ago
    No? You could buy your own server rack and stick it in your basement if you wanted. Server hardware isn't going away. But that's usually more expensive than renting a cloud instance—not because server hardware is expensive (you can get used servers on ebay for prices competitive to used gaming PCs)—but because cloud instances are so cheap.
- rgawdzik 11y ago
  Assuming Apple will always allow programming apps and don't have a change of heart; it's their walled garden.

skrebbel 11y ago

As a happy Windows Phone user, I know a thing or two about App Store problems. 1) tech bloggers love to predict any platform's impending doom by any means possible, and app stores are great for that because you can draw all kinds of conclusions without worrying about real practical problems. 2) if you like the device and the core of how it works UX-wise, you'll find a way to make it do what you want it to do even if $perfect_solution isn't available (yet). There might be things wrong about the iPad Pro, but it's a damn cool device and I'm sure people will get productive with it.

jacquesc 11y ago

Not limited to iPad Pro. I've stopped buying apps from App Store after wasting hundreds over the years on stuff that looks good but ends up too buggy and I uninstall a week later (after paying for). Also rebuying the full 2.0 version of an App because the App store doesn't have an upgrade process. Seems like these are features that are Apple has gone slightly too far without. Ill be shocked if they dont announce these features finally at WWDC this year.

Kiro 11y ago

> One of the common complaints made by software developers who spoke to The Verge is that they can’t offer free trials of their apps as part of the App Store download process How is this an issue? Why not just put an in-app purchase enabling the full features?

xgbi 11y ago
Well, you can't give the user a taste of what the full feature set is like when you have an inapp purchase. What dev want is a way to have a full featured app that expires after a certain amount of time, not a limited version that enables all features over a paywall.
tadfisher 11y ago
From https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#purchasing-currencies https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#pur... > Apps containing content or services that expire after a limited time will be rejected, except for specific approved content (e.g. films, television programs, music, books)

binaryapparatus 11y ago

As a iOS/Mac developer for the last five years, I have seen steady decline in sales, developer quality and customer quality. Turn towards low level consumer markets that took place few years ago can't be mitigated with any amount of trickery to boost sales. Trials are needed but they won't fix the problem. Problem is that we all inflated the market way beyond its capacity and such bubble can't stay inflated for long. I have some six Mac apps in MAS and I consider that number too high -- some of them will have to go. On the other hand any other Asian based developer has 70+ apps, all at $0.99 and not worth the cost of the web page they are on. Apple loves to brag about number of apps in any of the stores but in order to do so they let any crappy app in as long as it does not break terribly. That drives normal customers away, then sales drive normal developers away. I don't see any solution, it is downwards spiral, unless Apple enforces 'quality police' to leave low quality apps away from App Store. And that won't happen.

IBM 11y ago
You're basically just arguing that there's too much competition. Unless you have a truly differentiated product you should expect prices to tend to zero.
- binaryapparatus 11y ago
  Not really. Competition is good and I don't mind competing with any company that has not-crappy-app to sell. I am arguing about general quality of the apps in the store: if 95% of them are bad there is no motive for normal paying users to even visit the store. That's something enforced (or not) by app store owner, Apple in this case.
  - walterbell 11y ago
    Agreed, this is also degenerating on Amazon with some consumer products, low-cost clones and paid reviews. The cost of searching/discovery becomes too high and an entire category becomes unusable for purchase.
  - IBM 11y ago

walterbell 11y ago

Ben Thompson at Stratachery has several posts on sustainable businesses on the app store, including one on F2P impact on app store revenues and mobile ads, linked in the article. In another post, he notes the historical tension between Apple and ISVs, https://stratechery.com/2013/why-doesnt-apple-enable-sustainable-businesses-on-the-app-store/ https://stratechery.com/2013/why-doesnt-apple-enable-sustain... "… Jobs’ statement was completely driven by Apple’s desperate state and the fact that Apple’s potential users cared more about Photoshop and Office than they did the Mac. For Jobs especially, it must have been humiliating … that Boston keynote was at the root of Jobs’ opposition to any 3rd-party apps on the iPhone, much less app store policies that enable sustainable businesses. Never again would Apple be held hostage to an app that was bigger than Apple." Anyone who has invested in buying iOS apps knows the challenge of app discovery. The time to find an app costs much more than the purchase price of the app. But even worse is the short lifespan of well-maintained apps, as developers are unable to build sustainable businesses. We are left with apps from very small dev teams or from large dev teams that monetize elsewhere.