4 ms·

Games. Art creation tools. Sound mixing. Musical creation tools. There are plenty of media-rich applications written by independents and minor players, enjoying

by roc 17y ago

Games. Art creation tools. Sound mixing. Musical creation tools. There are plenty of media-rich applications written by independents and minor players, enjoying far more success on the app store than they could via shrink-wrap channels or home consoles.

pyre 17y ago
But that's due to a captive audience and a single channel of sales. You could make the same arguments for many things. Disney can turn a higher profit selling soda in their parks because they are the only ones selling soda in their parks and a 20oz bottle costs $2.00+. That doesn't mean this is a net win for anyone but Disney. If WalMart were the only retail store on the face of the planet, people that were able to sign deals with WalMart would also enjoy great success... The reason they wouldn't do as well in shrink-wrap channels is that they would have to have a larger marketing budget, and market to a wider audience at smaller returns. The audience of iPhone users is an audience with low barriers to impulsing purchases, and an audience of relevance (i.e. iPhone users going to the AppStore are all potential customers, random people in a B&M store may or may not be potential customers).
- roc 17y ago
  If Apple only allowed in EA, Activision, Ubisoft, etc - you'd have a point with your captive audience analogy. The PS3, PSP, PSN, etc fit in great with your argument. But the App Store is different than that. More than just the big names are allowed in and are making money. And that's the net win. Apple delivered a massively lower barrier of entry (even if it's arguably higher than necessary and certainly higher than we might like) and they've gone out of their way to provide services that massively level the playing field: hosting, equal placement[1], cc processing, international support, etc. Even though it's still a closed platform, more creators are making a living by creating and that's a net win in my book. [1](Try getting a shrink wrap game on a shelf at Best Buy next to The Sims. Increased marketing/packaging/distribution costs aside: it simply does not happen unless you sign on with a publisher.)
  - pyre 17y ago
    > If Apple only allowed in EA, Activision, Ubisoft, etc - you'd have a point with your captive audience analogy. The PS3, PSP, PSN, etc fit in great with your argument. But the App Store is different than that. More than just the big names are allowed in and are making money. And that's the net win. I don't entirely agree with that. The AppStore only allows in people that Apple 'likes.' Granted, this is a larger group than say the vendors at Disney's theme parks or Walmart's retail contracts, and maybe that is a net win. But it's still a captive audience. Apple could achieve the same effect with the AppStore + random apps installed from the internet. The AppStore would still be the same integrated purchasing experience, and I'm willing to bet that most people would still sign up to be part of the AppStore. But this also leaves the avenue open for people that Apple "doesn't like" to create apps that target the platform. What would you think if Ford Motor Co decided to make all their cars only accept tires make in a proprietary fashion that tire makers had to license from Ford Motor Co? They could make the same arguments as Apple. They could claim that they are only doing this to 'ensure the quality of the tires used on their cars.' It would be their right to do so, just as it's Apple's right to restrict their platform. But I think there would be a ton of people upset about the move. > Even though it's still a closed platform, more creators are making a living by creating and that's a net win in my book. I agree that it's a net win because it's 'better than what we had before.' The issue is that it could be even better but Apple is purposefully holding us back from that because we should 'just be happy' that things are 'better now than they were before.' Though it's a flawed analogy, it's sort of like rescuing us from slavery to make us indentured servants instead of going the full monty and setting us free. Sure being an indentured servant is a hell of a lot better than being a slave, but we could have been set free at the same time. [ I realize that in reality indentured servants were little better than slaves of a different name. I'm going off the flawed picture that most children's history books paint for us to build this analogy. ]

by roc 17y ago

pyre 17y ago

But that's due to a captive audience and a single channel of sales. You could make the same arguments for many things. Disney can turn a higher profit selling soda in their parks because they are the only ones selling soda in their parks and a 20oz bottle costs $2.00+. That doesn't mean this is a net win for anyone but Disney. If WalMart were the only retail store on the face of the planet, people that were able to sign deals with WalMart would also enjoy great success... The reason they wouldn't do as well in shrink-wrap channels is that they would have to have a larger marketing budget, and market to a wider audience at smaller returns. The audience of iPhone users is an audience with low barriers to impulsing purchases, and an audience of relevance (i.e. iPhone users going to the AppStore are all potential customers, random people in a B&M store may or may not be potential customers).

roc 17y ago
If Apple only allowed in EA, Activision, Ubisoft, etc - you'd have a point with your captive audience analogy. The PS3, PSP, PSN, etc fit in great with your argument. But the App Store is different than that. More than just the big names are allowed in and are making money. And that's the net win. Apple delivered a massively lower barrier of entry (even if it's arguably higher than necessary and certainly higher than we might like) and they've gone out of their way to provide services that massively level the playing field: hosting, equal placement[1], cc processing, international support, etc. Even though it's still a closed platform, more creators are making a living by creating and that's a net win in my book. [1](Try getting a shrink wrap game on a shelf at Best Buy next to The Sims. Increased marketing/packaging/distribution costs aside: it simply does not happen unless you sign on with a publisher.)
- pyre 17y ago
  > If Apple only allowed in EA, Activision, Ubisoft, etc - you'd have a point with your captive audience analogy. The PS3, PSP, PSN, etc fit in great with your argument. But the App Store is different than that. More than just the big names are allowed in and are making money. And that's the net win. I don't entirely agree with that. The AppStore only allows in people that Apple 'likes.' Granted, this is a larger group than say the vendors at Disney's theme parks or Walmart's retail contracts, and maybe that is a net win. But it's still a captive audience. Apple could achieve the same effect with the AppStore + random apps installed from the internet. The AppStore would still be the same integrated purchasing experience, and I'm willing to bet that most people would still sign up to be part of the AppStore. But this also leaves the avenue open for people that Apple "doesn't like" to create apps that target the platform. What would you think if Ford Motor Co decided to make all their cars only accept tires make in a proprietary fashion that tire makers had to license from Ford Motor Co? They could make the same arguments as Apple. They could claim that they are only doing this to 'ensure the quality of the tires used on their cars.' It would be their right to do so, just as it's Apple's right to restrict their platform. But I think there would be a ton of people upset about the move. > Even though it's still a closed platform, more creators are making a living by creating and that's a net win in my book. I agree that it's a net win because it's 'better than what we had before.' The issue is that it could be even better but Apple is purposefully holding us back from that because we should 'just be happy' that things are 'better now than they were before.' Though it's a flawed analogy, it's sort of like rescuing us from slavery to make us indentured servants instead of going the full monty and setting us free. Sure being an indentured servant is a hell of a lot better than being a slave, but we could have been set free at the same time. [ I realize that in reality indentured servants were little better than slaves of a different name. I'm going off the flawed picture that most children's history books paint for us to build this analogy. ]