What no indie developer wants to hear about the App Store

by tambourine_man • 10 years ago

101 79 10 years ago

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

melling• 10 years ago

If you take several apps that don't make enough money to support their developers and add then up, they aren't going to support everyone working as one company. I don't see much cost reduction as a group.

jackvalentine5• 10 years ago

I wasn't suggesting combining all their apps in to one stable. I was suggesting creating a larger company that has working conditions that suit the kind of person who is an indy developer. Most (all?) of their current apps would probably need to disappear.

It wouldn't be the same as working for yourself, but it wouldn't be the same as working for some faceless corporation either.

djKianoosh• 10 years ago

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

jackvalentine5• 10 years ago

I don't know, I'm not American.

cft• 10 years ago

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

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_Grocery_Cooperative

dragons• 10 years ago

Alvarado Street Bakery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvarado_Street_Bakery

There's a list on wiki (not all USA): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_employee-owned_compani...

stevetrewick3• 10 years ago

No, that sounds awful, and precisely the kind of thing I quit working at BigCorps to avoid.

Your core assumption seems to be that changing the ownership model is enough to counter the lack of autonomy that comes from spending all day in a hierarchical business with other people. I'm actually struggling to imagine how you arrived at this point of view.

jackvalentine5• 10 years ago

Christ, you're reading a lot in to "perhaps..." and ascribing some really strong emotions to it.

tmikaeld2• 10 years ago

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• 10 years ago

Shameless plug coming up:

This is why I built 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.

tmikaeld2• 10 years ago

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

Can_Not• 10 years ago

I had a similar idea, but I would have started from the Android side. What timeframe do you think you will expand into the non-iOS app stores?

swiley• 10 years ago

The Debian package repos have some quality apps, they're just not "optimised for touch screens".

api• 10 years ago

I look for paid apps on the Play store with high ratings. Those are usually decent, and you can return them if they aren't. Free apps on Android are like 90% borderline malware.

wildmusings2• 10 years ago

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?

return03• 10 years ago

TLDR of the article: sour grapes.

techdragon• 10 years ago

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

wildmusings2• 10 years ago

It's a fun fantasy, I admit.

wimagguc2• 10 years ago

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.

thenomad2• 10 years ago

Which all-new platforms would you currently recommend?

qznc• 10 years ago

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

746F74753• 10 years ago

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.

hboon2• 10 years ago

Like what the hell even is indie app?

In the Mac world, and now iOS which most of this article refers to, the term indie developers has a more specific meaning. It refers to a single developer or small team of a few developers that is self-funded. It almost definitely implies doing it full-time [1], and not doing this during their free time only (aka. hobbyist).

It has more or less the same meaning as used in the video games community, and similar to how it's used in film making.

mnem• 10 years ago

Indie video games have never been defined like that, and neither have indie films. It means independent of a major publisher, that's all. The team size or level of funding has no bearing on that.

SyneRyder• 10 years ago

Similar definition with musicians as well, at least in the 90s - an indie musician was typically not signed to a record label, and published their own CDs and merchandise and sold / mailed them directly to fans. They didn't have the resources of a huge marketing department or big record label advances, but they had direct contact with individual fans & got a much higher percentage of the profit on every sale. They could make a living from a smaller fan/customer base (The 1000 True Fans theory).

746F74753• 10 years ago

So it's just about size of the team and the amount of money? Why should that be a consideration? I personally just care that the application works and does what I expect it to do. I don't care if it's done by big team or small team or a single chimpanzee from the local zoo.

richie5um• 10 years ago

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.

erelde• 10 years ago

But, no one has a right to a living.

On the contrary, I think that should be a basic human right. But hey. Communism.

In this context though, the devs should change their strategy.

mikehollinger• 10 years ago

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.

746F74753• 10 years ago

'light, snackable, mass-market apps'.

I don't get this. What makes an app "snackable"? Like: "Ohh, it's so easy to use, fuck that! Cool guys configure their apps in source code and compile them themselves". I've never understood why people feel that instantly something is popular it must suck or be bad.

I could easily make a twitter app that would require you to donate $5 to a charity, run a mile and press a button 100 times everytime you tweet. This sure as hell isn't snackable or mass marketable. Am I now part of the cool kids club?

lostgame• 10 years ago

Gotta agree with this one. I do app development for a living, and if you didn't put marketing in your budget, well, you didn't think it through.

flohofwoe2• 10 years ago

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.

AznHisoka2• 10 years ago

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• 10 years ago

"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/

amazon_not• 10 years ago

I would only wish. Search is hopelessly broken in the App Store.

Too• 10 years ago

Google play on the other end has the opposite problem. Once you've as much as searched for simulation and strategy game a single time, the front page will be filled of nothing but simulation and strategy games.

return03• 10 years ago

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• 10 years ago

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

return03• 10 years ago

No "app store" to have those isses.

ThomPete• 10 years ago

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.

al2o3cr• 10 years ago

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...

paulryanrogers• 10 years ago

One advantage to the shareware era is there were fewer choices even with indies. During that time I began working at Babbage's when only 25% of the store was games. Now there are so many mainstream games a store cannot fit them all.

ec1096852• 10 years ago

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.

stevetrewick3• 10 years ago

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• 10 years ago

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.

cwyers• 10 years ago

The real problem is that the App Store favors some business plans (like free games that use a Skinner box mentality to get you to make lots of in-app purchases) and disallows others, like apps that charge for major version upgrades.

brudgers• 10 years ago

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• 10 years ago

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.

sandra_saltlake• 10 years ago

This is very fast!

vitd3• 10 years ago

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?

jasode3• 10 years ago

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.

vitd3• 10 years ago

Thanks for making that distinction!

bboreham• 10 years ago

"2.9 Apps that are "demo", "trial", or "test" versions will be rejected."

https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/

vitd3• 10 years ago

Sure, but if it's just a free version with a single in-app purchase that unlocks key features, then it's not a demo, a trial, or a test app, so they won't run afoul of that. As proof, there are many "Lite" and "Full" versions, and I have seen a few apps that you unlock with an in-app purchase. So obviously this isn't a concern at the moment.

jakobegger2• 10 years ago

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!

jasode3• 10 years ago

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.

jakobegger2• 10 years ago

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.

oneloop• 10 years ago

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!"

robterrell• 10 years ago

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.

What no indie developer wants to hear about the App Store

Related Stories