3 ms·

>These aren't assumptions. No, they are assumptions. You are making assumptions and imo questionable conclusions. I specifically agreed that some companies wo

by credo 16y ago

>These aren't assumptions. No, they are assumptions. You are making assumptions and imo questionable conclusions. I specifically agreed that some companies would hesitate to create apps that weren't pre-approved. So we have no disagreement on that point.We disagree on your assumptions. You are also factually wrong on the assertion that "no one will risk doing "big" things as they're afraid of rejection". Look up the definition of "no one" and you'll see that it is different from "the businesses that gte910h has spoken to". You are also wrong on your assumptions about <200K apps. >>On (2) you can create high-quality apps on a small budget >You can? Yes, several other people have also created high-quality iPhone apps.Many of them were done with budgets less than 200K.

gte910h 16y ago
You've completely mischaracterized my comment, which is why those aren't my assumptions, as you're thinking I'm saying something more comprehensive than I am. I've shared my observations, but those aren't my assumptions. I am merely commenting on one of many influences on the store which lead to it filling with crap, not the Unified Field Theory of Apps which explains every trend in the store. I know there are lots of OTHER reasons, which you'll see in my comments all over this page as well. I'm in no way saying apps cost 200k. I am saying some concepts do, and the apple approval process drives them out. Most apps cost 1-25k when done non-agency and 15-90k when done through an agency. I am not, in any way, saying small apps can't be good, nor am I saying I'm an omniscient being. I'm saying I talk to people all day long about this, I watch them choose to go low quality over high quality sometimes, and I see the decision as they make it. It's not just companies I talk to, its companies the 100 or so other iPhone devs I know talk to. Same story all over the place. I AM saying given the level of limited funds people put into apps, it's not surprising they chose to spend their limited budget on increasing functionality rather than making a smaller subset of functionality work very well (aka, Quality), especially since limited functionality is yet another reason your app gets rejected, no matter how pretty it is. Given the chance even if you do everything right, you will still get a rejection, it's not surprising they spend X instead of 250% of X on their app, as its a business risk. If you don't think people spending 20-50% of what they would if there was no chance of rejection effects quality, you're asleep in a haywagon.

by credo 16y ago

gte910h 16y ago

You've completely mischaracterized my comment, which is why those aren't my assumptions, as you're thinking I'm saying something more comprehensive than I am. I've shared my observations, but those aren't my assumptions. I am merely commenting on one of many influences on the store which lead to it filling with crap, not the Unified Field Theory of Apps which explains every trend in the store. I know there are lots of OTHER reasons, which you'll see in my comments all over this page as well. I'm in no way saying apps cost 200k. I am saying some concepts do, and the apple approval process drives them out. Most apps cost 1-25k when done non-agency and 15-90k when done through an agency. I am not, in any way, saying small apps can't be good, nor am I saying I'm an omniscient being. I'm saying I talk to people all day long about this, I watch them choose to go low quality over high quality sometimes, and I see the decision as they make it. It's not just companies I talk to, its companies the 100 or so other iPhone devs I know talk to. Same story all over the place. I AM saying given the level of limited funds people put into apps, it's not surprising they chose to spend their limited budget on increasing functionality rather than making a smaller subset of functionality work very well (aka, Quality), especially since limited functionality is yet another reason your app gets rejected, no matter how pretty it is. Given the chance even if you do everything right, you will still get a rejection, it's not surprising they spend X instead of 250% of X on their app, as its a business risk. If you don't think people spending 20-50% of what they would if there was no chance of rejection effects quality, you're asleep in a haywagon.