The realities of indie app development
Developer David Barnard of App Cubby, a frequent guest on our podcast, has offered some insight into the recent Sparrow acquisition by Google, how it fits into the greater realities of indie app development, and what it bodes for the future of hand-crafted software on the iPhone and iPad. Suffice it to say, it's not all Angry Birds, all the time. In facts, it's hardly ever any level of Angry Birds, any time.
Given the incredible progress and innovation we’ve seen in mobile apps over the past few years, I’m not sure we’re any worse off at a macro-economic level, but things have definitely changed and Sparrow is the proverbial canary in the coal mine. The age of selling software to users at a fixed, one-time price is coming to an end. It’s just not sustainable at the absurdly low prices users have come to expect.
If Apple hadn't allowed or encouraged the devaluation of the App Store. If so many developers hadn't raced to the bottom. If so many users hadn't failed to support great software at reasonable prices. If. If. If.
Any time a model fails to provide sufficiently for all parties involved, that model changes. David does an excellent job explaining how it's failing, how he, as a developer, is dealing with the realities of the App Store economy, and what that means for the software we love.
Go read it.
Source: App Cubby
There are 10 comments. Add yours.
Should we be surprised that yet another developer is crying about app prices? Welcome to the real world where the market dictates how much something costs. I know many people with iPhones that refuse to pay for even a single app. If app prices start going up, I will know even more.
I shell out a lot of money for apps because I like having every tool I need on my phone. But I'm the minority, and even I will not go along with paying $9.99 for apps that the developer will abandon 3 months later.
The app market reminds me a lot of the dot-com bubble. Tons of developers will get weeded out in the process, and eventually only the really good ones will be left (not counting people who are making free fart apps). That's how the world works. Those getting weeded out can cry about it in blog posts all they want - it's not changing.
Re: "The age of selling software to users at a fixed, one-time price is coming to an end. It’s just not sustainable at the absurdly low prices users have come to expect."
The same thing is happening to apps on the Mac App Store as well. And, as we all know, OS X itself is getting cheaper and cheaper, at least in terms of upgrade cost. The 10.8 Mountain Lion upgrade will only cost $20. Yes, consumers are definitely being trained to expect more for less, software-wise.
And one of the biggest losers in this new low-cost software era will, of course, be Microsoft. They're still heavily dependent on big-dollar enterprise Windows and Office contracts. They've repeatedly failed in the consumer space. They're retreating to their core competency: milking corporate IT departments locked into multi-year upgrade agreements.
Remember when Apple tried to beat Microsoft in the corporate space? They failed miserably. But over the decades, Apple has successfully driven Microsoft out of the consumer space in all but one area: gaming consoles. Ironic, isn't it? All that focus on enterprise, plus an oddball legacy gaming console. (And we hear that Xbox games are quite expensive. At the moment.)
Ahem, what consumer space has Apple driven Microsoft out of? Microsoft still commands about 90% of all consumer computers (more than 1 billion of them), and most are running Office and other Microsoft games and utilities. In contrast Apple has sold about 160 million iOS Devices to date. Until recently the most successful non-Apple software on the OS-X platform was Microsoft Office, and it still is a very popular app.
Apple has gotten a good beachhead on the mobile market, but even there Apple has no dominance and struggles with competitors such as Samsung and Google.
The biggest loser will not be Microsoft, will be us, because we were caught in the bubble and have gotten used to the "there is an app for that" mentality, and that's about to end. Apps will become scarce and expensive, leveling the playing field among App Store, Android Market and Windowsphone MarketPlace. The second biggest loser will be Apple, because apps are the main selling point for iDevices. In fact, in this crisis Microsoft is the one with less to lose, since it was never strong on mobile apps anyway.
OMG, Microsoft is about to loose the desktop and laptop market and I will be forced to buy computers for $3000 from Apple instead of for $1000 from Newegg for the same spec. Bye-bye MS Windows and Office! ROFLMAO
Predictable knee-jerk reaction. Barnard is not "crying" - he is simply stating the fact that there is a hard limit to the amount of talent you can employ, and the amount of time/effort/capital you can invest. That limit is low enough for a $2.99 one-time purchase app that those apps will disappear, either altogether, by becoming crappier (less time/talent to create) or by finding new revenue sources, either ads, subscriptions, or as a loss leader for other products. (And that third category usually produces neglected apps.). Bu the single purchase, low-cost non-game app appears to be a dying breed, according to Barnard's data, and his interpretation of Sparrow's experience.
And you may be fine with that. Certainly the market is pointing that way, and I certainly can't think of any free-market way to "fix" things. But this two-tier system, where apps are developed either on a shoestring by a limited team or by a conglomerate that can absorb losses or monetize elsewhere misses out on a large, creative middle - developers like Sparrow. I think that is a loss, but you and the market disagree. In both our cases, you get what you pay for.
I'm not sure why he'd work full time on something dictated by where his app falls in the ranks for a given week. He already broke even on his app. After this, it should be bug fixes and whatever support he provides.
New features & functionality should start a new investment in cost for a 2.0 version that hopefully again will sell enough for him to break even. Maybe Apple will help provide a better mechanism for paid updates that don't require purchasing a new 2.0 app. If 1.0 didn't pay the bills then there probably shouldn't be a 2.0.
Anyways, I'm for supporting devs and buying new versions. I don't expect free updates that include new functionality or features. My advice would be to STOP doing that. That's the same mistake newspapers made when they decided publishing all their paid content on the web for free was a good idea. Always charge what you can and do not work for free. I know i don't.
But as a rule, i generally steer clear of subscriptions and "free" apps with in-app purchases galore. You better hope your app is essential or compelling if you go that route because few are.
"New features & functionality should start a new investment in cost for a 2.0 version that hopefully again will sell enough for him to break even."
Really late response here, but the earlier canary in the Coal Mine was Tweetie. Loren tried the same thing with the well-received Tweetie client, and faced a massive uproar when he tried to do exactly this with Tweetie 2. I would suspect this reaction was at least in his mind when he decided to sell to Twitter rather than continue with Tweetie independently.
I wouldn't have a problem paying more for apps if there was some sort of 'return' process that didn't involve the hassle of dealing with Apple support. I can't be the only person out there that thinks this way. We all bought one of the more pricey phones out there because 'it works', and I carry that approach in almost everything I buy. Its worth the extra cost for the extra value.
I would love to have a simple 'return this app' button that gives you an opportunity to provide feedback to the dev , or do a review in the same step. I can't imagine how many mediocre, if not bad, pay apps are still profitable because it's not worth the hassle to get a refund on something that costs 99 cents ... and there are absolutely devs out there counting on this.
Absolutely agree about the "return" button, but I guess Apple will never do that since they also profit their 30% on those mediocre apps.
I think that while the race to the bottom is unfortunate, the reality is that consumers are becoming more accustom to pay as you go or subscription models. App developers need to adapt to this reality. Regarding a 'return' button - this is a disaster for developers on Google Play and is further proof that Google can't operate a paid ecosystem if a business model not ad based hit them in the face.
Marketing for apps also has to evolve - the reality is that the App Store is the Yelp or Opentable of software for devices. I usually use a site like www.gnomeescape.com to garner reviews and feedback from real users as I release new apps or new versions, this helps organic users decide to buy my app and also gives be valuable feedback on how to improve the product before I spend additional marketing dollars.