4 ms·

While he is completely correct, and I don't see this changing at all, I dislike that this is what app development has become.

by patejam 14y ago

hnriot 14y ago
Why? App developers look to what's selling and do better at it? Isn't that the usual software ecosystem at work, just like biological evolution. This is always how software has evolved, it's just that now, we have tools that largely do a product manager's job.
- patejam 14y ago
  Oh don't get me wrong, I completely understand why developers do it and completely respect them for going that route. I just wish there would be more of an incentive to create apps that are more innovative and complex than quick-to-produce addictive apps.
  - damian2000 14y ago
    In the end, its a big washing machine, the good apps will inevitably rise above poor ones, but sometimes it just takes a bit longer. I felt he's just suggesting ways to remove some of the initial obstacles to selling an app.
    - rfelix2121 14y ago
      Exactly. Thanks!
  - svachalek 14y ago
    The market won't bear it. $3 is considered robbery, an unthinkable, unforgivable amount to dare to ask as compensation for an app, no matter how much work was involved and who can tell how much was involved anyway? So multiply 99 cents by a small thought-leader/early-adopter market of 37 people and you've got dinner at Chili's as just recompense for all that effort and risk. The next stop, coming soon if we're not there already, is $0 and I really doubt we're ever coming back from that.
rfelix2121 14y ago
Me too. I'd much rather build something amazing that everyone picked up on immediately and that they thought was amazing, but that's not the App Store reality now. :(
- nicw 14y ago
  Skipping the first note, the author makes a strong point about keeping it simple. You may have an amazing idea, but if the user can't jump in, perform <x> and then jump back out, it's not likely to catch on. By only having one thing (add text to photos), you're really letting the users vote about whether they would use that functionality. Try to pack too much into your first version of an amazing idea, and you'll have a tough time parsing out which needs tweaking when you're not getting traction.

While he is completely correct, and I don't see this changing at all, I dislike that this is what app development has become.

by patejam 14y ago

While he is completely correct, and I don't see this changing at all, I dislike that this is what app development has become.

hnriot 14y ago

Why? App developers look to what's selling and do better at it? Isn't that the usual software ecosystem at work, just like biological evolution. This is always how software has evolved, it's just that now, we have tools that largely do a product manager's job.

patejam 14y ago
Oh don't get me wrong, I completely understand why developers do it and completely respect them for going that route. I just wish there would be more of an incentive to create apps that are more innovative and complex than quick-to-produce addictive apps.
- damian2000 14y ago
  In the end, its a big washing machine, the good apps will inevitably rise above poor ones, but sometimes it just takes a bit longer. I felt he's just suggesting ways to remove some of the initial obstacles to selling an app.
  - rfelix2121 14y ago
    Exactly. Thanks!
- svachalek 14y ago
  The market won't bear it. $3 is considered robbery, an unthinkable, unforgivable amount to dare to ask as compensation for an app, no matter how much work was involved and who can tell how much was involved anyway? So multiply 99 cents by a small thought-leader/early-adopter market of 37 people and you've got dinner at Chili's as just recompense for all that effort and risk. The next stop, coming soon if we're not there already, is $0 and I really doubt we're ever coming back from that.

rfelix2121 14y ago

Me too. I'd much rather build something amazing that everyone picked up on immediately and that they thought was amazing, but that's not the App Store reality now. :(

nicw 14y ago
Skipping the first note, the author makes a strong point about keeping it simple. You may have an amazing idea, but if the user can't jump in, perform <x> and then jump back out, it's not likely to catch on. By only having one thing (add text to photos), you're really letting the users vote about whether they would use that functionality. Try to pack too much into your first version of an amazing idea, and you'll have a tough time parsing out which needs tweaking when you're not getting traction.