3 ms·

> I think Apple feared that more third-party toolkits are on the way, and that they'll become more popular. I guess Apple has been surprised by apps popularity

by fab13n 17y ago

> I think Apple feared that more third-party toolkits are on the way, and that they'll become more popular. I guess Apple has been surprised by apps popularity. Their original policy was that 3rd party applications ought to be web apps (initially, it was the only way to go). Embedded applications make sense: * for super-tightly integrated user experience: but then, you don't want any lowest common denominator middleware on the way, as they guarantee a crappy experience (typically way worse than a decent and portable web app, see below). * for driver-like stuff that do magic (but Apple always hated the idea of 3rd parties writing such sensitive code, which is one of the reasons why OSX is way more stable than Windows) * because in some countries, users are stuck with a not-so-reliable 3G carrier, so being able to run offline is valuable. Hopefully that's a temporary situation, and I understand that HTML5 allows to write offline-compatible web apps anyway. * because it's culturally accepted to pay a couple of dollars for a fart simulator app, but most people won't pay a dime to access the New York Times content in a web site. That's the reason why most apps are apps rather than web sites, but that's a problem with the web, not Apple's business. This last point is at the core of most issues with Apple's tight control on iPhone apps: most of them should have been web app. They've been written as apps not to benefit from the iPhoneOS platform, but to benefit from the AppStore's easy monetization and publicity. It's about the AppStore, not about the iPhone!

raganwald 17y ago
> it's culturally accepted to pay a couple of dollars for a fart simulator app, but most people won't pay a dime to access the New York Times content in a web site. That's the reason why most apps are apps rather than web sites, but that's a problem with the web, not Apple's business Brill! The funny thing is, the price of 'software' has often really been driven by the price of distributing it, not the value it delivers or how much it cost to create it. (Joel Spolsky has pointed out this is why Enterprise Software costs so much: because it costs so much to sell software to Enterprises). The App Store really takes the friction out of the business of distributing binaries, including the friction out of marketing it. So it should come as no surprise that a lot of really good software is cheap in the app store. It won't be long before you won't be able to charge for the NYT in the app store either.
- hga 17y ago
  Nit, but he pointed out there isn't much in the way of software that's priced between $1,000 and $75,000: "There's no software priced between $1000 and $75,000. I'll tell you why. The minute you charge more than $1000 you need to get serious corporate signoffs. [Etc. And to get that you need a salesforce and so on.] And with all this, the cost of making one successful sale is going to average about $50,000. If you're sending salespeople out to customers and charging less than $75,000, you're losing money." (http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/CamelsandRubberDuckies.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/CamelsandRubberDuckie...)
  - raganwald 17y ago
    Are we in violent agreement? The cost of sales is part of the cost of distribution. Part of why the App store lowers prices is reducing the cost of spitting bits, but most of why it lowers prices is by reducing the cost of marketing software to users.
    - hga 17y ago
      Cordial agreement, more like it. Joel was talking almost entirely about the sales effort, not so much about marketing (although you need a much more expensive marketing effort if you're playing the big sales force/big ticket sales game at the upper end, if only to establish your company and/or brand). And I really wonder about lowering the cost of marketing. I don't know at all how this Apple App ecosystem works, but it seems to me that rising above the crowd and noise of 100,000? 1 million (if not now, soon enough) apps means you need serious marketing of some sort, or a stroke of luck where your app goes viral without much connected effort on your side. The generally greater interconnectedness of today probably has a lot more to do with lowering the cost of marketing than anything having to do with the App store ... although that'll e.g. depend on its search function and how and if people use it. I note that Amazon gets by with what is by far the worst search engine of any site I've used in years.
  - lpsmith 17y ago
    I can think of a lot of software that's priced in the $1000-10000 range.

by fab13n 17y ago

raganwald 17y ago

> it's culturally accepted to pay a couple of dollars for a fart simulator app, but most people won't pay a dime to access the New York Times content in a web site. That's the reason why most apps are apps rather than web sites, but that's a problem with the web, not Apple's business Brill! The funny thing is, the price of 'software' has often really been driven by the price of distributing it, not the value it delivers or how much it cost to create it. (Joel Spolsky has pointed out this is why Enterprise Software costs so much: because it costs so much to sell software to Enterprises). The App Store really takes the friction out of the business of distributing binaries, including the friction out of marketing it. So it should come as no surprise that a lot of really good software is cheap in the app store. It won't be long before you won't be able to charge for the NYT in the app store either.

hga 17y ago
Nit, but he pointed out there isn't much in the way of software that's priced between $1,000 and $75,000: "There's no software priced between $1000 and $75,000. I'll tell you why. The minute you charge more than $1000 you need to get serious corporate signoffs. [Etc. And to get that you need a salesforce and so on.] And with all this, the cost of making one successful sale is going to average about $50,000. If you're sending salespeople out to customers and charging less than $75,000, you're losing money." (http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/CamelsandRubberDuckies.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/CamelsandRubberDuckie...)
- raganwald 17y ago
  Are we in violent agreement? The cost of sales is part of the cost of distribution. Part of why the App store lowers prices is reducing the cost of spitting bits, but most of why it lowers prices is by reducing the cost of marketing software to users.
  - hga 17y ago
    Cordial agreement, more like it. Joel was talking almost entirely about the sales effort, not so much about marketing (although you need a much more expensive marketing effort if you're playing the big sales force/big ticket sales game at the upper end, if only to establish your company and/or brand). And I really wonder about lowering the cost of marketing. I don't know at all how this Apple App ecosystem works, but it seems to me that rising above the crowd and noise of 100,000? 1 million (if not now, soon enough) apps means you need serious marketing of some sort, or a stroke of luck where your app goes viral without much connected effort on your side. The generally greater interconnectedness of today probably has a lot more to do with lowering the cost of marketing than anything having to do with the App store ... although that'll e.g. depend on its search function and how and if people use it. I note that Amazon gets by with what is by far the worst search engine of any site I've used in years.
- lpsmith 17y ago
  I can think of a lot of software that's priced in the $1000-10000 range.