To compete in a global marketplace with no barrier to entry it's not enough to simply ship software. Apps are commodities. You've got to create something with unique value. Probably that means doing something technically difficult or new.
I was going to say exactly the same thing. Once the initial novelty of app stores wore off, only the shitty economics behind them were left to bare:
- The barrier to entry is so low as to be non-existent. We haven't seen a mass distribution channel with entry barriers this low since the lemonade stand.
- Since the above point forces most participants in the market to now compete mostly on price, the race to the bottom of the last decade or so has raised a generation of consumers who now expect software to be free.
- The subtle friction of finding and installing apps has led the average person to basically not bother at all, as we now know most people install zero apps per month. The lions share is now exclusively the domain of those with ridiculous marketing budgets and iffy business practices.
I'm just not sure exactly where we are on the technology curve of App Stores. Are we in the trough of sorrow, where a new horizon of viability and sustainability coupled with lowered expectations is just around the corner? Or will we look back at the App Stores as the AOL of the 2010's? I'd love to hear opinions on the subject.
Everything.me, a company that created an AI-powered launcher for Android closed down too, even though the product solved a technical problem and offered a unique proposition (context-based launcher). Such a promising product, but how do you compete with the likes of Google and Apple that can build their own apps, and control the platform, and have just as many talented developers as you do, and endless funding? It isn't easy at all, unless you've got traction from elsewhere, like the web (Facebook), or a social network affect (like games do, and messaging apps do).
> Since the above point forces most participants in the market to now compete mostly on price, the race to the bottom of the last decade or so has raised a generation of consumers who now expect software to be free
In India, apps aren't just free. You get hefty discounts if you use apps. Race to the bottom has meant that VC funded business can simply terminate the competition by burning through the investment. The barrier to entry might be lower, but that is setting a potentially dangerous precedent for the app-store economy on a whole, as app-developers continue their focus on acquiring users luring them with discounts, with a view to gain in the long run (which works for the e-commerce companies).
Tech companies like Google, that offer high quality apps for free, have spoilt the regular user-- no one expects to pay even a $1 for an app well-designed and well-built. Games get the money because its addictive and companies like Google haven't invaded that market yet with their free offerings driven by ad-revenues, user-profiling, and vendor lock-in.
And the lemonade stand has the advantage that it doesn't have to compete with every other lemonade stand in the world.
If we had Star Trek style replicators where recipes are protected, how many people would be able to make a living selling lemonade? One of them might sell more, either by chance or because he has a slightly better recipe. So uldn't the money flowing in allow him to spend money improving the product or its marketing, leading to increased sales in a self-reinforcing cycle?
Yes, a few people could make a living selling 'not what everybody drinks' lemonade, but that doesn't quite work that way in software because people do not gain status (yet?) from having that "look how rich I am" app.
> people do not gain status (yet?) from having that "look how rich I am" app.
Actually, some time ago there was this app [1] that was basically just a background image but the price was set at the maximum allowed at the time in the Apple App Store.
Incredibly, it turns out that it actually sold several times due to people were actually "gaining status" just by having it.
In the end, it was a signal that you could spend 1K USD in a stupid background and it made no difference to you. Kind of the most abstract idea of status in a product that I can think off, i.e. I can just literally waste the money and I can prove it sort of thing
I remember buying my iPad. I remember saying to myself, "I paid a lot of money for this device, Apple will not get another penny--in any way." And they didn't. They didn't even get my cc number. I figured I bought this pricey hardware--that's it.
I know there's a lot of great apps, produced by hard working Programmers. I've just spent so little time in iTunes, I don't even know what you guys are offering.
In all honesty, I don't like iTunes. I liked it in the beginning. The more complicated/flashy it got, the more I used it in emergencies.
I couldn't imagine having a lot of time/money invested in an iTunes app today. I imagine the tides will turn though?
That's how I feel about any hardware I've purchased. Part of the problem is that the software really isn't ownable. It doesn't feel like I have any control over it.
If a new version of Windows comes along there is no guarantee that my software will still work on it. And there is certainly no guarantee that my current version of Windows will work on a replacement machine.
With Android everything is controlled from the store. If there is a officially supported way to transfer apps without re-downloading from Google Play I don't know of it. Also if I want to share an app how would I even do that without lending my phone?
Also could be: Web browsing. Facetime. Looking at photos. Notes. Reminders. Calendar/agenda. Being able to look at the local weather. Seeing what a few stocks are doing. Add only a dozen or so well chosen apps, and you're probably at the limit of what the majority of people really find utility in -- in common. Everything else is going to be for specific niches, or the result of marketing to people stuff they don't need.
There's additional friction in the fact that it's virtually impossible to find anything (of value) in the App Store and there is no way to know before paying for an app whether it will work as advertised and/or deliver any value.
'It's only the price of a cup of coffee" does not fly after you've paid for 10 media player apps, none of which fully work or are stable.
Personally, I completely stopped buying Android apps after Google reduced the "free return" policy from one day to 15 minutes. 15 minutes just isn't enough time to evaluate an app.
(When looking it up to confirm that it used to be one day, I found out that in August 2014, Google actually bumped it up to 2 hours - but I never found out about the policy change. Two hours isn't really enough time either - I might buy an app at lunch but only get to try it out in the evening, after work. A two hour window still kills impulse purchases.)
If you buy something remotely, and you haven’t used it in a relevant way – say, less than 2h play time (like steam does it), or unopened package IRL – then you can send it back at any time.
> The subtle friction of finding and installing apps has led the average person to basically not bother at all, as we now know most people install zero apps per month.
don't forget the subtle friction of having to pay for stuff, which is another factor triggering the race-to-free.
True, but again this ties into the first point about the marginal cost of producing apps being basically zero, thus they hold little value to anyone. Especially when the stock OS apps do nearly everything the average, non-niche consumer wants to do with a mobile device.
You accept the friction of paying for a porterhouse steak because no butcher could sell them for less than the marginal cost of producing them and remain viable. Since the marginal cost of producing apps is (essentially) nothing, it's no surprise almost nobody can resist the downward pressure and make a buck off apps.
> - Since the above point forces most participants in the market to now compete mostly on price, the race to the bottom of the last decade or so has raised a generation of consumers who now expect software to be free.
And the result of this we're seeing everywhere now in the IT. Wonder how come your fresh sparkly edition Windows is a turd ? Why you don't get any updates for your Android phone ?
Unfortunately, that's only half the battle. Just telling potential customers about the app is incredibly difficult, particularly with the very broken state of App Store search.
Definitely, but I can personally attest to that being much more effective when the number of apps was 10% of what it is now. Most of the old marketing channels are gone with little replacing them.
Ban me, whatever I care, but this is by far the stupidest top comment I have ever heard in HN. If you are still reading basically this is a lie, search for "Mirror app", in summary it has millions of downloads, it just an app that shows your camera, it has nothing new, nothing special, is just that is the first result. It has nothing to do with "unique value", it's all about the sorting algorithm Apple uses. And the same happens if you search "Flash light" and another million searches. Meritocracy is just another myth people like to believe.
