
What no indie developer wants to hear about the App Store - tambourine_man
http://imore.com/app-store-disconnect
======
746F7475
> I fear we've moved into an era where pop — popular, light, snackable, mass-
> market — apps, not indie apps

This is some pretencious bullshit if I've ever seen some. "Uhh, you like them
'pop' apps, go back to your herd you sheeple". Like what the hell even is
indie app? Based on this context it's anything that isn't doing so well or is
"underground" that's not what indie means, it just means "independent" as in
it's few guys/gals doing it on their free time.

And what is actually preventing author from giving money to indie app
developers "I would if I could", bullshit, have you actually contacted the
devs and asked if they would setup a paypal for monthly donations? I doubt it.
Sure there are some people who develop apps just for fun and don't want to
feel obligated to update the apps (i.e. they don't want paying customers), but
I'm sure many on your "indie app list" would be willing to take your money if
you just offered it.

~~~
richie5um
This was my feel too.

I doubt the author would admit it, but, I think a lot of hyperbole is due to
long-standing "Mac devs" and the author's circle of friends and acquaintances
being unable to sustain a living from (merely) writing their own apps. Which
is especially frustrating for them as the audience has grown dramatically over
the past 5+ years.

Sure, the supply has grown considerably, and with that there are more 'light,
snackable, mass-market apps'. But, that's what happens when the barrier to
entry gets lower, and supply increases.

It is a true shame when we lose gifted 'indie' developers and some truly
fantastic apps. But, no one has a right to a living.

Interestingly, and perhaps a hidden message in this article, is that there are
_significant_ parallels to draw to journalism.

~~~
mikehollinger
So how's this different from Shareware in the 90's?

I don't think anyone then (i don't know for sure, because I know no one who
actually put out shareware, personally) expected to get rich making software
that spread like wildfire via floppy disk, but that's somehow changed (replace
floppy disk with "social media"). I'd posit that the difference is
expectations of grandeur that the startup culture (combined with pop culture)
have created.

~~~
ghaff
A few did end up making a living at it--at least for a while. But, right, it
was a vanishingly small percentage. I probably did better than most and I
still certainly wasn't about to give up my day job.

I think another difference today is that shareware, for the most part, was
clearly separate and distinct from retail software. Today, the lines are much
more blurred.

~~~
ec109685
Kagi existed since the mid 90's at least, so it was easy to take folks money
as a shareware developer.

------
flohofwoe
One problem (not the only one) with the app store (IMHO): all users go through
the same funnel (or through several hidden funnels, doesn't really matter
since they don't have a say in it), but a single user doesn't care about
99.999% of app store content. For instance, I mostly care about simulation and
strategy games, I don't care at all about some other genres. Where is my
lovingly curated special place in the app shop that also only cares about
simulation and strategy games? Where's the whole community infrastructure
around those games? Where are the curators that live and breathe those games,
and find the occasional hidden gem?

App stores as simple store fronts may work as long as there wasn't a lot of
content (like on the game consoles). But content-wise, the iOS app store is
more like the world-wide-web, just with a shitty interface (or rather: it's
more like AOL). Apple won't care as long as the overall revenue from the app
store keeps growing, and they are the only ones who could solve the problem.

~~~
AznHisoka
Apple categorizes apps just like Yahoo once categorized each site in a
directory. But you're not forced to browse through each category. You can
simply search for the specific app name or keyword like "todo list".

Also the curators are everywhere - they're called bloggers, tweeters, Etc.

~~~
NegatioN
"curators are everywhere - they're called bloggers, tweeters, Etc."

That won't change the market for these apps though, there needs to be a way
for curators to actually be featured in the app store itself. An example would
be how Steam did it's curator-feature. Although it's not perfect, it allows
you to follow a curator, or get suggestions for which curators to follow based
on apps you have already downloaded. [1]

I see big opportunities for re-igniting the indie-market in this way, I'm just
not sure there's an incentive for the app stores to go through with it.

[1]:
[http://store.steampowered.com/about/curators/](http://store.steampowered.com/about/curators/)

~~~
npunt
Somewhere in this direction is where I've been wanting to see the iOS and Mac
App Stores go. There needs to be a method to incentivize app quality beyond
the current method of a set of rules & guidelines for devs to follow, and a
bunch of one-off user reviews.

Despite iOS being huge, the universe of _good_ apps (and by extension good
devs) is quite limited and tractable by human curators, especially broken down
by category. No algorithm can effectively compile the variety of criteria that
make up a good app (tho they can inform that compilation process). If I were
ran the iOS/Mac App Stores, I'd incorporate select curators as a sort of
second party relationship - independent from Apple, but chosen for their
credentials in a category/area of expertise and their ability to write for a
broad audience within that category. I'd give them first class treatment in
the app store, with embedded commentary on why the app matters and for whom.

I think Apple employee curators have their hands tied in not being able to
provide real commentary or expert opinion, and thus are not able to pick
winners in any sort of explicitly reasoned way (which doesn't really
incentivize increased quality, just relationship building with Apple
employees). The key bit is curating the curators to ensure their independence
from financial incentive and their focus on broader appeal in a given domain,
like finding the Mossbergs of different categories. The super niche curators
will still have blogs and social media.

Of course the path beyond second party is the Steam example, where reviewers
can sort of graduate to a superuser reviewer path. I think Apple has been
reticent on this front given that the App Store hasn't been a priority, and
that they've had trouble with social with Ping and now even artists on Apple
Music.

One of the things I did at my education journalism company was build a near
complete database of education apps [1] to help educators make sense of a
large universe of possibilities. My experience is that if you're the one with
the database + reviews, the best you can do is organize intelligently
(according to user needs) and collect relevant data, but that because
impartiality matters, your hands are tied when it comes to picking winners.
This creates a mis-match with the user's desires, who want to find something
quickly and be assured with decent, independent analysis. A solution to this I
believe is second party curators.

[1] [https://www.edsurge.com/products](https://www.edsurge.com/products)

------
jakobegger
I consider myself an indie developer, and I share none of the author's
pessimism. On the contrary -- I think that the circumstances have never been
better for indie developers.

First of all, customers have gotten used to buying software from individuals.
On the app store, my app is sold alongside apps from major corporations.

Secondly, who cares if the app store is dominated by large companies? As a
solo developer I don't need millions of dollars in revenue. I just need to
find a niche that's worth 100.000€ a year, and there are plenty of those
niches! And the nice thing is that these niches are not interesting for big
companies, because the market is too small.

If you look for successful indies, you will find them. You won't often read
about us in the media, since most of us make mostly boring stuff for small
audiences, but we exist!

~~~
jasode
_> On the app store, my app is sold alongside apps from major corporations.
... I just need to find a niche that's worth 100.000€ a year,_

Fyi, the author seemed to be talking about the iOS App Store (phones/tablets)
and not the Mac App Store (desktop software.)

In any case, are you talking about your PostgreSQL apps at eggerapps.at
earning €100k? If so, that's awesome. To clarify, are you getting most/all of
that €100k from the Mac App Store as opposed to sales outside that channel?
30% is a lot of commission to give to Apple and I'm surprised that a typical
customer would discover that type of db app in the Mac App store as opposed to
a google search or forum recommendation linking to your website. From there,
they could download it directly without that Apple middleman.

~~~
jakobegger
You're right, my personal experience is limited to the Mac App Store. But I do
know indie developers who make money with iPhone apps, and I think the general
situation for indies is similar: you can find plenty of niches that are big
enough to support a single developer or a small team.

And yes, I was talking about the apps on eggerapps.at, mostly Postico. I do
sell my apps directly as well, and only around 20% of my sales are on the Mac
App Store. Postico has a lower price on my website, but apparently there are
some people who really prefer the Mac App Store.

------
tmikaeld
I rarely even try apps on Play Store any more since I'm so damn tired of popup
ads, video ads and pay-to-play concepts.

And a majority of the sorted, popular and "highest grossing" apps are that
way.

If i knew where to get quality apps that don't try to lure or force me into
paying for using apps, i would gladly pay for it and install it.

And i think that even more people would - because most people i talk to are
also tired and even scared of installing new apps because of this.

I also hear the arguments "We HAVE to do this to get money!", no you don't -
if an app is good it's more important to market it and make people notice it.

~~~
dansingerman
Shameless plug coming up:

This is why I built [https://appapp.io](https://appapp.io) , so it would be
possible to search for apps in the App Store (it's IOS only at the moment)
while filtering out those with in-app purchases. I'd like to also make filters
for advertising models too, but structured data for that is much harder to
come by.

I don't think smarter search will entirely solve the problem, but I think it's
one piece of the jigsaw to help solve the problems of the App Store.

~~~
tmikaeld
This is very nice and very fast, thanks for the plug!

------
ThomPete
I used to be on the Mac app store and did make fairly good money on it. I
ended up dropping it because of the Sandbox which basically makes it
impossible to innovate. Instead i focused only on selling directly from my
website and through various distributers. Thats ended up being a much better
strategy for me.

The biggest problem MAS have isn't that it's only pop apps but rather that
it's 1) Not a destination for people looking for serious apps (google is)

2) Doesn't allow for fundamentally new types of apps to be developed.

------
brudgers
One business problem is that app developers don't have any control over design
at the point of sale. The app store template prevents differentiation. The
worst turd looks just like the highest art in the app store. Mechanically, it
is just as easy to buy turds as art...easier when the turd is "free".

Everybody says 'mobile first'. It just shows waterfall is not dead, just
internalized to the point developers are taking app store requirements over
the transom and tossing code back over and then doing their QA through the
fortress of bureaucracy surrounding the users.

~~~
jasonthevillain
> The worst turd looks just like the highest art in the app store

This, and the lack of trials. If I find an app that, for example, looks like a
solid iTunes replacement but costs $25, well, if it works, that's totally
worth it to me. But there's a very good chance it doesn't work.

Including trial periods would improve the ecosystem - the good apps could go
for what their worth and I'd stop collecting $2 promising garbage.

------
wimagguc
Your advantage as an indie company is that you can move fast, experiment with
app ideas on all-new platforms. When the App Store was new, indie companies
had to compete against other indie companies, where everyone came from about
the same background.

Larger companies have the advantage of doing everything at scale. Once an app
or platform seems to be proven, they can move in and do what they are best at:
carpet-bomb the battlefield.

On the App Store today you will compete against CandyCrushes, who can buy out
a massive amount of ad inventory, making CPIs super-cheap. You can still win
with an all-new app idea, but it gets increasingly difficult to come up with
something totally new that others can't copy in a week.

Or you can do what you as an indie company are best at: experiment with app
ideas on all-new platforms.

~~~
thenomad
Which all-new platforms would you currently recommend?

~~~
qznc
VR goggles, cars, TVs, smart watches. In that order.

~~~
thenomad
TV as a platform? Seems like it's been around for a while.

Or do you mean Smart TVs? I don't know much about the app ecosystem there if
it exists at all.

~~~
wimagguc
It's not so much about how long the platform existed already: mobile phones
and mobile apps were around long before iPhone and Android brought the real
break-through.

Timing is key, and though I think the time for VR, smart TV, IOT or wearables
hasn't arrived yet, I do think that indie devs should keep their eyes open.

------
stevetrewick
Another (of what must now be well into the thousands) App Store piece that
basically boils down to : The App Store is a maturing market and if you expect
to make money from developing apps then you need an actual business plan
including sustainable revenue models and marketing strategies. Just like any
other business.

For some reason this makes the author sad.

~~~
braythwayt
What makes the author said is the specific nature of the sustainable revenue
models and marketing strategies. The metaphor from the article works just
fine. Once upon a time toys were wooden and passed down from generation to
generation. They were made by local craftspeople. Now that is a niche within a
niche.

It’s perfectly ok to feel sad about that time passing. We don’t have to choose
to also feel sad, but there’s absolutely zero wrong with the author’s sadness,
and it’s not a particularly difficult thing to understand.

------
robterrell
As a former indie I can empathize with the sentiment, but as a journalist, by
focusing on his indie friends' fortunes, he's missing the bigger story.

The app business is as healthy as Hollywood or TV, with all the good and bad
that implies. You could even say it's the "golden age" of apps. Clash Royale
just launched world-wide and immediately rocketed to #1 the same day -- the
first blockbuster app launch?

And yet, some indies still do well! There are indies in the top 50 paid (if
not grossing) apps list right now. It's an extremely interesting time in the
app business. But he's missing this fascinating transition story.

I'm sure he'll rile people up. Unnamed indies, but surely any of his podcast
listeners could guess who, wringing their hands because "the value and esteem
is gone." What does that even mean? The obvious guess: they can no longer make
a living from their note-taking or podcast-player apps. I'm sort of riled up!
I bought Overcast. I bought Vesper. Etc. I like indies!

But markets move forward. And this is a very natural progression, from an
immature market where anyone could set out a tent and do a brisk business, to
a mature market that demands a lot more than just the best mousetrap.

Another note: the successful indies in the top 50 lists are mostly making
games. Not utility apps. Not note-taking apps. Not podcast apps. The app store
is mostly an entertainment venue. Games are at the fat end of the revenue
curve. The indie podcast / note apps are squarely in the long tail.

------
al2o3cr
There was a brief period - after the App Store opened, but before people had
really figured out how to write good apps - where an indie dev could just put
up a new app and expect sales on novelty alone.

Those days are OVER.

It's fairly appropriate that App Store apps are sold through iTunes - because
the issue facing indie developers is exactly the same as the one facing indie
musicians. If you don't have a massive promotional budget to drive traffic to
your new thing, you'll need to get better at online promotion & connecting
with your customers.

It's still an improvement over the indie software ecosystem of twenty years
ago, where either you were big enough to get shelf space for a boxed product
(good luck!) or you were hoping enough people would get tired of the nag
screen and pay the shareware fee...

~~~
ec109685
Why do you need a massive promotional budget. As long as the cost to acquire a
user is less than the amount they will spend, you can start off small with
your advertising spend and go from there. Cost per install ads can be bought
at small scale.

------
marcoperaza
> _Customers, by and large, decided we 'd rather have an endless supply of
> cheap than we would a few precious pieces and the market has followed._

Wouldn't it be a travesty if a bunch of developers in ivory towers decided
that the customer is wrong and that he actually needs expensive, carefully-
engineered apps with features that he doesn't want? There's thankfully no
Software Developer's Guild, so the real outcome of this approach is that no
one buys your apps and your competitors eat your lunch.

> _Others will continue to rage against the pop-ificiation of the App Store.
> There 'll be more tweets and more editorials about what Apple has done wrong
> or should be doing better, on how developers "gouge" even while "racing to
> the bottom", and how customers are cheap, entitled, and, often, assholes.
> And I'll be joining them._

The customer is always right. If you need his money, the customer gets to be
as much of an asshole as he wants. If the customer can get a more primitive,
but sufficient, alternative cheaper from your competitor, he probably will. If
BigTechCompany can make a competing app and sell it for less than indie devs,
then it looks like the invisible hand found a more efficient way to produce
the product, good! Anyone who thinks it should be otherwise, is it not they
who are acting entitled to the customer's money and interest?

~~~
techdragon
Some days the code I'm reading makes me wish there was a Software Developers
Guild to punish the author of such terrible code.

~~~
marcoperaza
It's a fun fantasy, I admit.

------
jackvalentine
Indie developers typically aren't interested in working at BigCorp, but
perhaps for survival they could consolidate in to worker-owned companies.

~~~
djKianoosh
what are some examples of worker owned collectives in the US?

~~~
cft
Rainbow Grocery in San Francisco. I recently bought a two dollar apple there
;)

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_Grocery_Cooperative](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_Grocery_Cooperative)

------
vitd
Can someone explain to me why people keep saying you can't have trials on the
app store? I've seen 2 ways this is easily achieved:

1) Release your app for free, but make the non-trial features be a single in-
app purchase for whatever the price of the app would have been.

2) Release a free or lite version, and also release a full paid version. Users
can use the lite version to see if they like it, then they can buy the full
version if they do. Often the lite version will inform the user they could do
more if they upgraded to the paid version.

Both of these currently exist. What is the impediment that makes developers
think this isn't possible?

~~~
jasode
_> why people keep saying you can't have trials on the app store?

>"... the non-trial features ..." "...lite version...full version..."

>"What is the impediment that makes developers think this isn't possible?"_

It's possible to you because your idea of "trials" is crippled version vs
uncrippled version.

Other developers are talking "trials" in terms of _time-limited_ -trial. The
timed-trial is the _full_ version with _all_ features except it quits working
after 30 days or whatever.

~~~
vitd
Thanks for making that distinction!

------
return0
I'm glad i didn't dabble with native platforms. Web technologies seem to be
finally converging to dethrone them.

But, by god this writer sounds so entitled.

~~~
mtberatwork
Not following. How do "web technologies" not suffer from similar issues to
what the author describes?

~~~
return0
No "app store" to have those isses.

------
sandra_saltlake
This is very fast!

------
oneloop
I'll save us all time by saying that this text is equivalent to "what most
people likes is not what _I_ like, therefore what a sad state of affairs!"

