
iPad Pro Has an App Store Problem - milen
http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/19/9757516/ipad-pro-apps-pricing-ios-developers-opt-out
======
binaryapparatus
As a iOS/Mac developer for the last five years, I have seen steady decline in
sales, developer quality and customer quality. Turn towards low level consumer
markets that took place few years ago can't be mitigated with any amount of
trickery to boost sales. Trials are needed but they won't fix the problem.
Problem is that we all inflated the market way beyond its capacity and such
bubble can't stay inflated for long.

I have some six Mac apps in MAS and I consider that number too high -- some of
them will have to go. On the other hand any other Asian based developer has
70+ apps, all at $0.99 and not worth the cost of the web page they are on.
Apple loves to brag about number of apps in any of the stores but in order to
do so they let any crappy app in as long as it does not break terribly. That
drives normal customers away, then sales drive normal developers away.

I don't see any solution, it is downwards spiral, unless Apple enforces
'quality police' to leave low quality apps away from App Store. And that won't
happen.

~~~
IBM
You're basically just arguing that there's too much competition. Unless you
have a truly differentiated product you should expect prices to tend to zero.

~~~
binaryapparatus
Not really. Competition is good and I don't mind competing with any company
that has not-crappy-app to sell. I am arguing about general quality of the
apps in the store: if 95% of them are bad there is no motive for normal paying
users to even visit the store. That's something enforced (or not) by app store
owner, Apple in this case.

~~~
IBM
"Crappy apps" is your characterization but I suspect is a red herring. In fact
most of the developers I follow who complain about the App Stores seem to
point to everything except the real reason, that there's more competition than
there ever was before the App Stores existed.

~~~
binaryapparatus
I suspect you are not looking at the app store. I just opened Mac App Store
and found random 'developer' with 80+ apps. One app is 'add border around
image'. Other app is 'crop image'. Third app is 'convert image (to jpg/png)'.
And so on, 80+ of them.

They are not apps by any definition. They are two lines of code each, doing
simplest possible job at $0.99 cost. They don't add anything to the App Store
apart from making all the other apps less visible. It is not competition by
any definition. Their only real effect is that potential customer can safely
assume all the other apps in the App Store are same unusable crap.

I would never confuse competition with noise. This 95% of apps are pure noise,
making App Store less usable, driving customers then developers away. Their
only value from Apple point of view is 'keynote value' that 'we have zillion
apps in the app store'.

~~~
IBM
Those apps would never be featured by Apple so they would only be seen if they
were searched for. They also wouldn't get the downloads to dominate the top
charts. So unless your apps are at the same level, you're not going to be
impacted by it.

And "driving customers away" is hogwash. Customers actually see the high
quality apps featured by Apple before anything, so even if seeing a poorly
designed app actually drove customers away that wouldn't even be an issue.
It's also not borne out by the data, app store sales and downloads have only
grown over the years.

~~~
binaryapparatus
True but they effect list of all the new apps in each category they appear.
That makes any new app much less discover-able, because new app slides down
too quickly. Plus having noise there (where it counts) makes any new app much
less interesting for the potential customers.

Waiting to get featured by Apple is not really what most of the developers can
count on, making high quality apps or not.

I spent months developing each of my apps so I assume they are not 'at the
same level' as crappy two liners. But they are as discoverable as those
apps...

------
techsupporter
I'd be interested in reading why neither Apple or Google have support for
trial apps in their respective app stores. Microsoft has this in the Windows
store, both for phone and computer and I'll grant that Google has a very quick
and easy return system (push a button and it's done, unlike Apple). Is there a
reason to not do it that I'm missing?

My curiosity comes from practicality: I'd love to try out the more expensive
apps on iOS but I don't want to pay out up front and then be disappointed and
have no trivial way to say "nah, wasn't worth it." Even Target lets me show up
with a thing and some manifestation of having paid for it then takes the thing
back with minimal fuss.

~~~
jamesk_au
Some iOS developers are using in-app purchases to provide support for trial
periods.

For example, a fitness app named "Sweat with Kayla"[1] (apparently a renowned
female personal trainer) is currently featured prominently at the top of the
front page of the Australian App Store.

The app description states:

 _Sweat with Kayla is free to download. All consumers are welcome to a free
7-day trial period. Should you choose to continue use of the Sweat with Kayla
app, we offer a single auto-renewing subscription option:

Just $4.61/week ($19.99/month)_

Is that trial period contrary to the App Store Review Guidelines?[2] Clause
2.9 says: " _Apps that are "demo", "trial", or "test" versions will be
rejected._" Strictly speaking, "Sweat with Kayla" might be a "full" version,
because you get the whole thing (at least for seven days).

On the other hand, clause 11.9 says: " _Apps containing content or services
that expire after a limited time will be rejected, except for specific
approved content (e.g. films, television programs, music, books)._ " Perhaps
Apple takes a broad approach to this clause and Kayla's workouts and food
plans were seen to be sufficiently close to the named examples of " _specific
approved content_ " to pass muster. It would be surprising if Apple had
decided to feature the app without reading its description.

Interestingly, the most favourable feedback left by those who have posted
reviews for "Sweat with Kayla" appears to be gratitude for the trial period,
which saved reviewers from paying anything before deleting it.

[1] [https://itunes.apple.com/au/app/sweat-with-
kayla/id104923458...](https://itunes.apple.com/au/app/sweat-with-
kayla/id1049234587)

[2] [https://developer.apple.com/app-
store/review/guidelines/](https://developer.apple.com/app-
store/review/guidelines/)

~~~
tadfisher
The "7-day trial period" makes me assume they have indeed passed muster, as
that is the minimum-length content subscription period:

> _Content subscriptions using IAP must last a minimum of 7 days and be
> available to the user from all of their iOS devices_

------
walterbell
Ben Thompson at Stratachery has several posts on sustainable businesses on the
app store, including one on F2P impact on app store revenues and mobile ads,
linked in the article. In another post, he notes the historical tension
between Apple and ISVs, [https://stratechery.com/2013/why-doesnt-apple-enable-
sustain...](https://stratechery.com/2013/why-doesnt-apple-enable-sustainable-
businesses-on-the-app-store/)

 _" … Jobs’ statement was completely driven by Apple’s desperate state and the
fact that Apple’s potential users cared more about Photoshop and Office than
they did the Mac. For Jobs especially, it must have been humiliating … that
Boston keynote was at the root of Jobs’ opposition to any 3rd-party apps on
the iPhone, much less app store policies that enable sustainable businesses.
Never again would Apple be held hostage to an app that was bigger than
Apple."_

Anyone who has invested in buying iOS apps knows the challenge of app
discovery. The time to find an app costs much more than the purchase price of
the app. But even worse is the short lifespan of well-maintained apps, as
developers are unable to build sustainable businesses. We are left with apps
from very small dev teams or from large dev teams that monetize elsewhere.

------
skc
The very same author in her original review for the iPad gave it a perfect 10
for "ecosystem".

~~~
venomsnake
It is no different in theory when the iPad was first introduced compared to
the iPhone.

But I think it is something else - the whole mobile market is stagnating. The
beast is already too big for a company to manage it, there are little to no
money and with walled gardens innovation is hard.

The only breakout apps in the recent years have been various kinds of
messengers or cloud services. For whatever reason nobody wants to write code
that does stuff on the devices.

~~~
walterbell
_> For whatever reason nobody wants to write code that does stuff on the
devices._

Few business models can afford a 30% tax. If you monetize externally to the
device, this tax can be avoided.

In addition, on-device computation generates less data for tracking,
surveillance analytics and "machine learning".

If Apple cared about privacy and app innovation, they would unbundle the 30%
app tax into optional developer services+fees that totaled 30%. This would
support a wider range of business models.

~~~
scarface74
"Few business models can afford a 30% tax. If you monetize externally to the
device, this tax can be avoided."

What do you think the "tax" is when you sell something wholesale to a
distributor that then sells it to a retailer?

~~~
walterbell
"a" distributor (optional 1 of N competitors on terms set by market) = markup

"the" distributor (mandatory 1 of 1 set of terms) = tax

------
skrebbel
As a happy Windows Phone user, I know a thing or two about App Store problems.

1) tech bloggers love to predict any platform's impending doom by any means
possible, and app stores are great for that because you can draw all kinds of
conclusions without worrying about real practical problems.

2) if you like the device and the core of how it works UX-wise, you'll find a
way to make it do what you want it to do even if $perfect_solution isn't
available (yet).

There might be things wrong about the iPad Pro, but it's a damn cool device
and I'm sure people will get productive with it.

------
jarjoura
For our company, normal iPad usage has basically fallen to zero. It's unlikely
that a sudden surge in iPad Pro users is going to regain our attention.

Also, Apple's sort of told professionals to fuck off for a few years now while
it focused on consumers. So I find it hard to trust them to do right by the
needs of niche pro users.

Time will tell though, so we shall see!

------
jacquesc
Not limited to iPad Pro. I've stopped buying apps from App Store after wasting
hundreds over the years on stuff that looks good but ends up too buggy and I
uninstall a week later (after paying for).

Also rebuying the full 2.0 version of an App because the App store doesn't
have an upgrade process.

Seems like these are features that are Apple has gone slightly too far
without. Ill be shocked if they dont announce these features finally at WWDC
this year.

------
rgawdzik
If the iPad Pro becomes a replacement for laptops (say for
children/teenagers), the fallout will affect tinkerers. On a iPad, children
don't get a terminal, can't run their own programs, and need to convince their
parents to spend $x in order to get a linux machine that has a Von Neumann
architecture.

In the worst foreseeable case, desktops/laptops become so rare that they costs
tens of thousands of dollars. Children interested in programming will then
have a massive barrier to entry.

Really another form of making Stallman's 'Right to Read' a reality; instead of
licensing debuggers, you make all mainstream OS's a non-Von Neumann
architecture.

[http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-
read.en.html](http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html)

[http://www.codersnotes.com/notes/the-death-of-the-von-
neuman...](http://www.codersnotes.com/notes/the-death-of-the-von-neumann-
architecture/)

~~~
derefr
I don't see how that's a possible forseeable case, even if there _is_ no such
thing as a "personal computer" any more: tablets still have SSH software, and
"tinkerer-level" cloud VM instances will still exist and cost no more than
$5/mo.

~~~
bluetomcat
The whole "iOS thing" fosters consumer culture in the field of computing like
nothing else before. You don't start programs, you "launch apps". You don't
see files or processes, you see only beautifully polished tiles. The basic
granularity of your computing experience becomes the "app".

On top of that, each app lives in its own context and can hardly be
"pipelined" with other apps to achieve something creative. It's the death of
creative computing.

~~~
throwaway3453
I think you're right that the appification of computers will have a
significant effect on tinkers. I contest that most users never cared about
what's going on under the hood, the appliance either works or it doesn't.

Even as a web developer, it boggles the mind to understand why browser context
menus have "View Source" on by default, rather than a developer mode switch.
This sort of stuff hits me hard. Like dead pause/break keys on laptops,
wireless switches on the chassis. Nobody is actually paying attention to what
they're building.

------
cm2187
Is anyone really using the ipad (pro or not) for producing stuff? I find it
great for checking emails or browsing the web, clunky for typing emails
(editing a text is where the experience really deteriorates), but I wouldn't
use it for anything else. Without a mouse and a keyboard it's hard to be
productive.

It's dangerous to bet against apple these days but combined with a small
ecosystem of professional authoring apps (compared with MacOS or Windows), I
am not very bullish on the pro.

~~~
Tomte
There are lots of quite sophisticated sketching, drawing and painting apps for
iOS.

As a software developer it's easy to mistake "producing" and "productive" for
"coding", but that's only one niche.

(MS Surface seems to be popular with comic artists, and even though they have
a PowerShell at their disposal, I suppose they are using their Surface much
like an Apple user can use his iPad.)

~~~
cm2187
The primary use case I have in mind is rather Office, which is also probably
the primary use case for most computers.

My experience with spreadsheet softwares on ipad is terrible compared with a
desktop experience. And for word/powerpoint we are back to my point on editing
something without a mouse and keyboard. There are some case in powerpoint
where a stylet would be quite powerful (for drawing shapes) but in most use
cases it is hard to beat the keyboard + mouse in term of precision, speed and
small amount of effort required.

I can understand how it can be used by artists for sketching but I would think
it's more of a niche market.

------
Kiro
> One of the common complaints made by software developers who spoke to The
> Verge is that they can’t offer free trials of their apps as part of the App
> Store download process

How is this an issue? Why not just put an in-app purchase enabling the full
features?

~~~
tadfisher
From [https://developer.apple.com/app-
store/review/guidelines/#pur...](https://developer.apple.com/app-
store/review/guidelines/#purchasing-currencies)

> _Apps containing content or services that expire after a limited time will
> be rejected, except for specific approved content (e.g. films, television
> programs, music, books)_

