
App Rot - tedlee
http://www.marco.org/2014/07/28/app-rot
======
0x0
Seems like the centralized app store model with week-long reviews and free-to-
play IAP-addiction-reliefs has lead to a proper race to the bottom. When you
have to peddle your wares in a crowded spot next to a million clones which are
free or $1-2, with no proper way to do trials or paid upgrades, and you also
have to take the full risk of development upfront with a chance for being
rejected during final review, it seems like everything is conspiring against
indies wanting to invest a lot of effort into a project they really care
about. It appears you either have to be a AAA megastudio or a cheap copycat to
have a chance to make a profit in 99.99% of the cases. Or be someone like
Facebook who can invest a bunch of effort into a super polished product like
"Paper" just for fun.

For example: Imagine spending 6-12 months on your own dime developing a really
neat bitcoin wallet app that you'd like to offer for perhaps $20-30. It'd be
completely crazy. Who knows if "virtual curriences" are banned or allowed in
the app store review process in 12 months?

~~~
walterbell
Why aren't developers choosing to build PC apps instead? Stardock said that
their worst-performing PC game earned more revenue than most iOS or Android
apps for which they could obtain revenue numbers.

On PCs, it is still possible for developers to sell from their own website,
without paying a 30% fee to a platform app store.

PCs may be a numerically smaller (hundreds of millions vs. billions of
devices) market, but customer perceptions of software value are reflected in
an order of magnitude difference in price expectations.

~~~
tomjen3
I know some indie game developers.

Plenty don't develop for any particular platform. You write your code in
Unity3D, and then build for all the platforms it can (Android, IOS, etc) then
you build your app for Steam where you make it run on all platforms (ie
Windows, Mac and Linux) which is easy because it is almost just a button in
Unity.

Then you hope that enough people buy your game to earn the development cost
back. You don't develop just for one platform because it is unlikely that you
will make enough money to get it back.

~~~
walterbell
Does the Steam ecosystem provide any support for marketing and discovery of
new games, or are users relying on word of mouth networking?

[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_(software)](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_\(software\))
mentioned Steam Greenlight for estimating demand for new games, but it is
apparently being phased out.

Is it limiting when a platform (Apple, Valve, Amazon, etc) owns the customer
relationship? Seems like it would be difficult to apply conventional marketing
techniques to learn about customers, if the platform provider owns the user's
contact info.

~~~
mnem
An interesting recent article about publishing on Steam:
[http://gamasutra.com/blogs/BurakTezateser/20140717/220624/Dy...](http://gamasutra.com/blogs/BurakTezateser/20140717/220624/Dynamics_of_Steam_as_a_Sales_Platform.php)

Generally, you still have to do your own marketing. There's no great
meritocratic system out there for discovering games (and pretty unlikely one
can arise IMO - it's impossible to objectively class a game as good or bad).

~~~
walterbell
Found a comment on an article linked from the one above:
[http://kotaku.com/i-think-gabe-has-mentioned-this-before-
man...](http://kotaku.com/i-think-gabe-has-mentioned-this-before-many-times-
hed-1577259744)

"I think Gabe has mentioned this before many times, he'd like to get rid of
Greenlight to leave developers open to place their game on steam.

Then, users would curate the titles through their own customized storefront.
This would drive word of mouth and generate free adverting for the companies
that really on the steam digital store.

So think of it as following your favorite youtube channel/ store front because
it has niche titles that are in line with what you like. You wouldn't have to
dig for titles if that's not your thing.

This way, the devs of said niche title appears directly to its audience and
yet still leaves the choice to the end user if they want to dig into the
onslaught of new releases.

I really hope Gabe follows through on this idea because it keeps options open
and doesn't give you a force fed walled garden that Sony, EA or MS is so dead
set on controlling and manipulating end-users/devs with."

------
tolmasky
Its interesting that it seems Apple has really shied away from doing the bare
minimum to improve things on the app store (until recently with videos and
bundles). Not having the store be significant revenue is a double edged sword.
I think there are some really interesting hacks that would have been better
for consumers AND developers. In another comment (years ago I think...) I
mentioned how I wish the top charts _wouldn 't show me apps I already own_.
There were years where Angry Birds, for me someone who already owned it,
represented the top 10 being an effective top 9. It knows I've already bought
it, there's nothing I can do with that being there - even Rovio is only
indirectly helped by this since I can't go and buy it again, it just serves as
some weird hypothetical billboard on my phone for "other people". If instead I
got a custom top 10 that was the top 10 apps I _don 't own_ I would be very
much incentivized to buy more apps. This is of course not even entering into
the actually interesting domain of suggesting better purchases for me.

App Store revenue not being Apple's bread and butter is a double edged sword.
My point here is not that the above idea would "save" the app business, but to
notice that the app store today is effectively the same as it was _6 years
ago_. Experimentation in that space doesn't seem to be in their DNA.

~~~
bruceboughton
What would your list look like with apps you owned removed?

    
    
         8. FartApp
        10. Flashlight
    

or

    
    
         8. FartApp
         9. Flashlight
    

In the first, with 9. Angry Birds removed, it looks like the data hasn't
loaded properly.

In the second, Flashlight has been promoted from number 10 to number 9,
falsely inflating its ranking.

You could solve this by leaving a gap or indicator where 9. Angry Birds should
have been but then the user's wondering "what isn't it showing me in that
gap?".

So maybe you should just call the Top 10, "Your Personalized Top 10". But then
it's not personalized really, all they've done is remove apps you already own.
The user thinks, "Why are Apple showing me fart apps? Don't they think I have
taste? Can't they see I only download Twitter clients and podcast apps?".

For the marginal benefit of not showing apps you already own, which are
indicated as such, you are opening a whole can of UI worms.

~~~
snowwrestler
> In the second, Flashlight has been promoted from number 10 to number 9,
> falsely inflating its ranking.

This is a concern that goes away in a user-centered design process. The
"ranking" does not matter to anyone but app developers or journalists keeping
score. The only reason a user looks at those lists is to find new apps to
download.

Consider Google SERPs, which are now highly customized. Who obsesses over
whether an item is at #7 or #9? No one but the people who own those links.
Everyone else just wants an answer to their question.

~~~
bruceboughton
The App Store has search results pages too. Top Charts are not search results
pages--they are rankings of apps.

Top Charts is a popularity-based browse mechanism. Search is an answer to
"what can i play podcasts on?".

You could argue Top Charts should be removed from the store or demoted. But
you need some kind of browse functionality because people are often not aware
that a certain type of app exists to search for.

~~~
snowwrestler
My point was not that the lists are the exact same thing as search results, my
point is that users don't care about the tiny details of whether a particular
app is #7 or #8.

If you conducted a survey of App Store users and asked them to give you the
numerical rank of a given app ("was it 8 or 9?"), I would surprised if many
could remember, and shocked if any cared.

Why do users view those lists? As you point out, to browse for new apps. The
precise numerical ranking does not help them very much to do that; therefore a
user-centered design process should not care very much about how precisely
accurate the displayed rankings are.

Edit to add: Users have no way to independently verify rankings anyway, so the
concept of a "false" shift from 9 to 8 has no meaning to them. They don't know
what's false, only what's useful.

------
martinald
Really interesting.

Anecdotally, I'm seeing people starting to abandon their iPads and go back to
laptops (generally macbooks/ultrabooks) in meetings and the like. I think the
keyboard is just too useful for most people. Smartphone usage is definitely
not following a similar trend, though.

~~~
tomjen3
That is going to change with the new IOS 8 keyboards. Believe me as an Android
user it makes a world of difference in regards to how fast you can type.

~~~
WorldWideWayne
I wonder how useful the keyboard is with iOS software?

Windows can be fully operated with just a keyboard and ~90% of OS X is
operable via keyboard, but I don't see that being the case with iOS or
Android.

------
baddox
I use my iPad at least an hour a day before falling asleep, and I am pretty
happy with the apps.

The YouTube app seems to be under heavy development, and while they often
break little things, they also fix and add stuff quickly. I really enjoy
YouTube on the iPad and I spend a lot of time there.

Likewise, the Google Maps app is great on the iPad. Most of what I said for
YouTube applies to Google Maps.

Twitter and Tweetdeck work great. They don't change much, but they don't need
to.

Twitch seems to be under active development. It works fairly well, and I use
it a fair amount.

Kindle and Amazon Instant Video don't change much, but they just work.

~~~
x0x0
do you have an iphone? In my (sample size me, so 1) survey (=P), tablet usage
plummeted after I got a nexus 5 and my phone screen wasn't so damn tiny

~~~
sandyarmstrong
Yes. I don't think I've turned on my Nexus 7 since I got my Nexus 5. The phone
is more comfortable to hold and the screen is plenty big for anything from
Netflix/Twitch viewing to ebook reading.

I always felt the original iPad 2 was too big and heavy to use comfortably for
very long, too. 5"-7" seems like the sweet spot.

------
golergka
> Top lists reward apps that get people to download them, regardless of
> quality or long-term use, so that’s what most developers optimize for.

Actually, that's where the in-app purchases come in. As every free2play game
developer will tell you, the key to good monetization is updating your app and
engage the community. Produce new content, throw seasonal promotions and
sales, fix bugs, keep the game alive.

That's exactly because you care about the overall LTV of the user, not the
download event — and, as free2play developer, my task is not to lure the user
to pay $1 to download it, but to convince the user to pay while he's already
in it. There are developers that buy installs for $10 a piece from a certain
sources, and they make a great profit out of it — just because once the user
gets there, he'll pay more. Not because anyone will force him to; it's
impossible to force the user to do anything, we don't a gun to his head — but
because he wants to.

May be the app developers, too, will finally go to the same route?

------
janlukacs
I simply hate the appstore - it's so full of useless bad quality apps - don't
even get me started on games. i have only oppened it a couple of times in the
past two years. They killed discovery for me, i'm not even interested in
checking out new apps (still no trials?!).

~~~
notduncansmith
A friend of mine runs a great magazine dedicated to uncovering the best games
in the App Store. You might find it valuable:
[https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/app-gamer-magazine-
ultimate/...](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/app-gamer-magazine-
ultimate/id670097598?mt=8)

------
andybak
It's interesting that the trends Marco says are inevitable:

1\. Use platform conventions over custom widgets

2\. Favour responsive layouts over layouts tailored for each screen

have long been the norm on Android. And since Holo - (1) has been far from a
handicap. Apps that stuck to Holo (and now 'Material design') conventions were
usually the most attractive.

With regard to (2) - the way this has forced Apple's hand in hardware choices
has been fascinating. Having to double resolution via retina rather than grow
incrementally and the long delayed and slightly painful transition to a new
aspect ratio for the iPhone 5.

------
kilian
As a user I like the pay-once model, but for apps that provide continuous
upgrades, a subscription model would make much more sense and I think Apple &
co would do well to start actively supporting that model for apps. The
ultimate guitar tablature iPad application does it via an in-app payment and
I'm more than happy to pay the yearly fee. I could imagine doing the same for
many other apps. The counterpoint here is that, as a user, I would then feel
entitled to frequent and substantive updates which would increase the load on
an indie even more.

------
pi-err
The article is not about the growing share of obsolete apps in the App Store
(as I thought). It's about the coming of age of the iOS app market - ie: more
contenders, more competition, lower exposure. And the lack of perceived value
of ipad development (says the author).

I understand this as: people are leaving our craftsman market in city center
to stop by the big retailers in suburbia and are happy with it. And the
craftsmen can't make their shops attractive enough vs big retailers.

I find Marco is pessimistic here (ad hom: as often).

1/ even matured and commoditized, the App Store is the largest money transfer
to software vendors _ever_ , with a favorable cut going to indies/small
makers. Even if less affluent, the small city center is still getting tons of
attention.

2/ still on the craftsman metaphor: city centers are actually thriving again
_along_ big suburbia retail thanks to a very intimate, qualitative experience.
There's an exploding market fed by a better information flow. So yes, x%
buyers are currently buying from an App Store "top list" \- what about all
other sources of traffic towards an app? Pretty sure you've lost if you bet on
a top list from the start (just like buying a sign off an highway for an
artisan). There are other leverages as well.

And 3/ from a consumer perspective, software is so different than devs
imagine. In my mind, real people see 3 very different types of app: \- give me
fun (news, games, many social apps) \- improve me and help me (smart home,
smart features, assistants, productivity, work etc) \- talk to people (many
social apps)

The "fun" and "talk" apps are totally commoditized. Freemium at best. Yes,
that's were the attention is, so what?

The "improve" market is just starting. It's harder to crack because people
want a perfect experience with it- it's intimate. That's why I see it as a
perfect opportunity for indie app makers.

Actually that's why I hope to launch an app studio next year to make it easier
for EU devs to build and integrate their apps.

Side note, hopefully Apple also removes soon enough the thousands of apps left
unattended for >3y. I don't thing Apple needs to hold that much to the total
app figures by now, can remove 50% of the old crust.

------
fleitz
Top lists are also free marketing, every time someone makes millions on the
app store, it makes headlines.

Those stories reinforce the message: develop for the app store and be a
millionaire, attracting both more developers and more customers to the
platform.

Apple has little incentive to change.

------
josefresco
This blog post, and those referenced are mostly about (the lack of) marketing.
You can't expect to hole up in your apartment for 12 months, build an app and
then have it take off or even sustain you. Replace the word "app" with
business and it all makes more sense.

Everyone wants to be a "founder" or "start-up ceo" but besides writing code,
there's a whole ton of good old business stuff that contributes to a
successful, profitable business.

It's not Apple's job to promote your app, they simply run the marketplace.

------
justinpaulson
I always thought this was an interesting topic. I think it really leaves the
door open for developers. I remember thinking a few years ago that most of the
app ideas I had were already implemented, but now when I look for those apps I
see that a lot of them have grown stagnant and opened the door for new players
in the same space.

On the OP though, I think it is unfair to bash apple so much. Most of the apps
I find are from curated groups like "Best New Apps", "Hot Puzzle Games", etc.

~~~
kayoone
Those apps are abandoned because its increasingly hard to reach any visibility
(and thus success) in the App Store, even if you sell for a ridiculously low
price. The risk on not even making back what you invested in time to create a
really good and polished app is immense when looking at the stats. So yeah,
there is room for new guys to find out its not a sustainable business these
days, unless you have a superb app and get really lucky.

~~~
coldtea
> _Those apps are abandoned because its increasingly hard to reach any
> visibility (and thus success) in the App Store, even if you sell for a
> ridiculously low price._

Not necessarily. Lots of very celebrated and nice selling apps are abandoned
just as well. This, for example, was a top seller in its day, and was all but
left to rot:

[http://blog.chasejarvis.com/blog/2009/09/the-best-camera-
iph...](http://blog.chasejarvis.com/blog/2009/09/the-best-camera-iphone-app-
book-community/)

I have lots more example of similar abandonment. Some developers went in for
cashing out, and couldn't bother afterwards.

------
j1z0
It's funny, regarding the "indies can't be profitable anymore aspect of the
article" I read a very similar article 10 years ago entitled, custom web
development is dead... then five years ago entitled 3rd part web design is
dead, now it's app development. My guess in a couple years we will be reading
iOS extension development is dead...

That's just the world we live in. Init? There is no standing still in the IT
industry.

------
nl
This is interesting and it begs the question: is now (finally) the time where
HTML5 app development makes sense - at least for some applications?

The technology is pretty good, and the single code base for iPhone, iPad,
Android and Web makes it as tempting as it ever has.

More importantly, now it lets you diversify your sources of revenue. That
wasn't important when it was easy to make money in the AppStore, but - maybe -
now it is?

~~~
coldtea
For some applications, maybe. Mostly apps that are glorified web views.

For anything that needs to tap to the full power of the CPU / sensors, etc,
that's a non starter.

> _The technology is pretty good, and the single code base for iPhone, iPad,
> Android and Web makes it as tempting as it ever has._

Unless if we're talking about an established service, like Facebook etc, it's
not like anybody made much (or any) money on the web version of their apps. If
you're a startup you might even hurt yourself from offering a subpar (non
native) Android and iOS experience.

------
yoodenvranx
I really wish there would be a section in all app stores which shows a
randomized list of "good" apps. I am not sure about exact criteria, but thede
should be a good way to discover good and often downloaded apps which are not
in the top 10.

~~~
josefresco
What you're describing are "featured" apps, plucked out of the pile from Apple
editors. I do wish there was more of this editorial work, and less reliance on
"top lists" for app discovery.

------
rokhayakebe
There is a lot of trash on paper(magazines, USWeekly, Celebrities,...), on tv
(Jerry Springer, TMZ, etc...) online (websites, web apps), on desktop
(software), why did we think mobile was going to be different?

------
coldtea
TL;DR;

1) In a store with close to 1 million apps, a lot of them aren't actively
developed anymore or updated to the latest iOS. (DUH!)

2) Hard work and effort are not automagically rewarded with large sales.
(DUH!)

3) Not all hundrends of thousands or millions of app programmers competing
with each other can live by their app income alone. In fact, few can. (DUH!)

~~~
thaumasiotes
> 3) Not all hundrends of thousands or millions of app programmers competing
> with each other can live by their app income alone. In fact, few can. (DUH!)

This doesn't deserve your "DUH!". It reflects the fact that making these apps
is easy. If it were so difficult or time-consuming that hobbyists starved
trying to get an app done, everyone in the app store _would_ be living on
their app income.

~~~
JetSpiegel
And yet not a single person proficient in Brainfuck lives off that knowledge.

~~~
thaumasiotes
You're missing the point. Doing something hard doesn't automatically bring you
income. But if making apps required so much that you couldn't support yourself
on the side, everyone who wasn't supporting themselves in the app store would
leave.

~~~
JetSpiegel
I was only half-making a joke, but I agree with with you, in a way.

The model you are proposing is the J2ME that Nokia had, and the result was an
utter flop.

------
marban
With all the app charts bashing going on, one might think that it's regarded
as a developer's right to have their famous 15 days with every product. Did
anyone expect or aspire anything else than a development towards a Billboard
Top 100 or NYT Best Sellers mentality in a matured market that's a 24/7
popularity contest? The app phenomenon has probably created more one-man army
millionaires in a very short time than any other industry, so stop complaining
and get creative.

Bonus:

[https://medium.com/message/you-are-not-
late-b3d76f963142](https://medium.com/message/you-are-not-late-b3d76f963142)

~~~
JetSpiegel
I'm already feeling better that someone I never met stroke gold. I'll kick
myself, don't bother.

