3 ms·
"especially when the cost of build/deploy <= cost of comprehensive research" you REALLY think so? I agree with your first few points, but I disagree on that la
by vlokshin 14y ago
"especially when the cost of build/deploy <= cost of comprehensive research"
you REALLY think so? I agree with your first few points, but I disagree on that last (quoted) bit entirely.
Building/deploying something of real quality (and potential viability) can be very costly.
The point of the app is to make that "cost of comprehensive research" negligible in comparison to what it is today. Either you pay a ton to do it right or train yourself forever on how to do it cheap (which is a cost of time). We want to lessen that burden exponentially.
- __abc 14y agoIt's definitely a tool if you want "a" data point "really fast". I won't argue against that. However, I would use it for "just" that and nothing more. I wouldn't use it to drive the entire decision. Per your point of disagreement, and depending entirely on the type of app, I stand by my point. You're anchoring the disagreement "quality". A down and dirty "test the waters" app is a lot less expensive than a "quality" app (ignoring apps that can't really have a down and dirty, like complex video games or something). I would agree, that on average, a "quality" app would take longer then a down and dirty "test the water" app. However, so long as you can get a down and dirty out the door so easily, we will see crap in the app stores.