- Posts tagged App Store
- Explore App Store on posterous
Android or iPhone: Where is the Mobile Developer Money?
Android has more developers, yet its percentage of paid apps is much smaller than the iPhone platform. Why is that?
One might think the "open" nature of Android attracts a larger base of developers willing to contribute for nothing, but the fact is it's hard to sell apps on Android. You can only pay for apps in 13 countries, and you can only sell priced apps from nine countries. This is nuts compared to the iPhone's 90 countries, and just another Android "dirty little secret." Take heart, though, you can always sign a petition to make it better.
I know it doesn't have to be about money. Many people do labors of love for "free." Maybe it's a learning experience, a way to unwind, or a sense of community or connecting with people. These could all be valid payments for your work. Not wanting monetary compensation is a personal choice that can't be judged. Indeed, though I buy a lot of apps I appreciate "free" software as much as anybody.
Having said that, if money's what you're looking for the iPhone platform is clearly where you want to be in mobile development.
iPad Rollout In Education Encounters DRM Hell
This is a hole in Apple's App Store infrastructure that the massive interest in iPads for education is exposing, in a way that the iPhone and iPod touch never did.
Good article on a major obstacle for rolling out iPads in the education market.
Thoughts On Today's Ruling About "Legal" iPhone Jailbreaking [u]
First, Jailbreaking was never really illegal. If legality is what kept anyone from doing it I think they were misinformed. It was a gray area awaiting a ruling either way; Apple wanted the court to settle the question as to whether jailbreaking violated copyright, and they did, though not in Apple's way.
There is zero evidence to support Apple would have gone after individual jailbreakers (had the ruling gone the other way), any more than they go after one-off Hackintoshers.
I believe Apple wanted the shield of illegality not to go after geeks, hobbyists, etc., but rather to stop the unscrupulous who may now crawl out of the woodwork to make a quick buck on this.
I can practically see "Jailbreak Kits" for sale already. Their marketing copy gushing about how this once forbidden activity is now available to the general public. They'll publish a link to the Library of Congress statement that few will read and fewer will understand. They sure as heck won't dwell on the practice being unsupported, or that the next iOS release will likely kill it. Money in hand, they're off to the next sucker leaving their current "customers" yelling at Apple as if it's Apple's fault.
Finally, Apple will continue to "break" jailbreaks. Not only does the statement not mean Apple must allow the activity, but I believe every jailbreak so far relies on a security exploit. Of course Apple's going to plug that hole. They better.
[UPDATE:] See this excellent post for more information what today's copyright ruling really says.
Dear Apple: Only 235,000 Apps? Only 47,000 Developers? Your "Closed" Model Sucks.
Total Active Apps (currently available for download): 234,915 […]
Number of Active Publishers in the US App Store: 47,370
I'm surprised Apple hasn't shut that site down for regularly publishing Apple's shame.
Meanwhile, I'm certain Android's freewheeling, "open" (except for the native API, or Flash), look-the-other-way, Lord of the Flies approach to app development has resulted in numbers that embarrass Apple's.
Right?
And even if the numbers aren't quite as high, I'm sure Android apps are overall of a higher quality, and will run on a higher percentage of phones than Apple's.
Right?
And even if fragmentation is a bit more of an issue, I'm sure Android developers are raking in cash from the reported 160K activations (potential new customers) per day.
Right?
For shame, Apple. Don't you know "open" always wins?
iPhone Developer Shows One Way To Handle An App Store Rejection
Options…
- become enraged at the fact that Apple has the audacity to reject us for knowingly using code that violates our developer agreement then alert the media in hopes that everyone will be sympathetic to our plight especially Gruber (be sure to link to a post of his saying that he was right about something because we all know that that’s the easiest way to DF linkage) then write Steve Jobs a letter and sulk at his inevitable response where he doesn’t bend an inch then bitch-quit the App Store (only to return with tail between legs 6 months later)
- just remove the illegal feature and submit again
The above is from a post about getting Camera+ approved for the App Store. The app had just been rejected, and it's their description of the two options they felt they had.
They chose the second one, by the way.
The result? Not only is Camera+ in the App Store, it recently received a killer update and I believe is now better than Best Camera. (Like Camera+, Best Camera was designed with a photographer to make it easy to shoot, edit, and share photos.)
So whether you appreciate the Camera+ developers and photographer for focusing on getting their app to market instead of complaining, or simply because they have a great app, you should check it out.
Finally, I know there are App Store rejections not so neatly dealt with. That's all the more reason to highlight Taptaptap's actions. The complaining from those who could just follow the rules tends to drown out those with legitimate issues who don't have such a clear option.
Google: You Too Can Be A Developer In The Privacy Of Your Own Home
Not only is the Android Market an open platform for developers (with no approval process, ala the App Store), but now we’ll likely see a vast array of specialized apps built by non-developers. This could radically increase the volume of apps in the Market versus the App Store.
I've written about Google's seeming goal of getting mobile devices on the web instead of running local apps. I outlined some things that could keep Android app quality relatively low:
- Fragmentation - Minimal app compatibility, or a lowest common denominator app that can't take full advantage of a device.
- Lack of vetting - Lets weak apps through, including potential security risks.
- Flash support - Another way of encouraging lowest common denominator apps.
I wrote "In short, while appearing to do all they can to let as many apps be available as possible, they've created a platform to breed lower-quality, inconsistent apps"
If there was any doubt about Google's desire to have lots of apps while keeping the app experience relatively weak, their latest move should make it clear: they're letting anyone write apps.
Google's App Inventor is like a late-night informercial: "Why bother learning a language and coding techniques, now anyone can be a developer with the Develop-O-Matic." I can see the infomercial endorsements now: "I was skeptical, but I just followed the simple steps provided. As a programmer I make more money each month than I ever dreamed of, and was able to quit my job snaking toilets at Wal-Mart. If I can do it, so can you!"
With everybody and their little brother submitting apps there's little question Android's app count will make huge gains. It probably won't take long before the number exceeds Apple's App Store, which is something they're gunning for. And with weak "competition" of local apps like this, Google's web-based solutions will look that much better, which helps lead people right where Google wants them.
I have no issue with lots of web and local apps; let everyone decide what works best for them. But what I see is Google poisoning the well from which local apps are drawn. They don't appear to want a fair fight, and make local apps too difficult (their market place appears to be a mess), generic (soon to include Jr. Developer Kit apps), and risky (potential privacy or security issues) so web apps look far superior by comparison.
Google is completely open except when they're not
Like any company, Google is open in what doesn’t make them money and proprietary as heck in what does. Android is open (under the Apache license, not GPL — which should give the philosophical FOSSies pause) but Google certainly hasn’t opened their search or AdWords platforms. Likewise Apple open sources WebKit (which Google uses for their browser) and OpenCL and Grand Central and FaceTime, but keeps their crown jewels equally closed. So enough already with the open stuff. You give me free services so you can mine my data, I sell my soul to you to use them. Deal. Just don’t insult my intelligence while doing it.
Good article. It's not the lack of "open" in Google's business I take issue with—it's just a business model, and a successful one at that. No, it's bullSchmidt statements from their CEO that bug me because he's rarely called on it.
Perhaps, albeit slowly, more and more tech writers will catch on like the one above. The open-but-not-really vs. closed-via-tiny-wall argument detracts from the actual products anyway. Offer something great, not rhetoric.
About Google "Openness"
Google's main product, its search engine, is still a very, very closed platform. If a developer wants to innovate off of Google's search, they currently have two options the AJAX search API and Google's Custom Search Engine (CSE) -- both of which have tremendous limitations. The AJAX API limits results to just 8, and really just keeps trying to drive users back to Google's properties. For CSE, the terms are quite limiting and only let you display Google ads on the results page
I've been saying for a while that Google is no more open when it comes to its key products than Apple is. When Apple's competitors beat the " open" drum, it's BS. Most of the tech press don't care—they just want a story to write—but it's nice to see some people have no problem stating it clearly.
Developer Opportunity: It takes more than iOS 4 to multitask on an iPhone
When we spoke to a number of developers, that aren't keen to be named in this article for fear of backlash from Apple, they all confirmed to Pocket-lint that, for any app to take advantage of the new multitasking features, it will have to be updated. Furthermore, many of those we spoke to felt that many apps simply won't be.
Aside from requiring iPhone 4 or a 3GS, you also need apps that have been modified to multitask. I suspect quite a few won't, and no one will care or even notice.
I also expect a bonanza of opportunity for some types of apps to be the first to support it. For example, as much as I use Twitter I'll be keenly interested in a client that multitasks. Would I try a different Twitter client for this feature? Absolutely. Same is true of RSS/news readers, and chat clients, and notes apps, and others.
So, while I understand this is work for developers, it's also a chance to get their app back in front of people who had previously chosen a competitor. It's not often developers are handed such a key and much-anticipated differentiator to add to their apps. Multitasking will be hot; smart developers will grab the opportunity quickly.
