It seems that the hard facts continue to rain on the parade for the writers of this NYT piece, to the point where they cite some tech writers blog on Schmidts failures and have a bunch of unnamed "sources" attest to Apples "eyecatching new 3-d map service".
Only to top it all off with a paragraph on one developers tough love relationship with Apples "hands-on approach to approving software" (read: anticompetitive, arbitrariness).
It's common knowledge that all of the NY Times' tech bloggers have meaningful stakes in Apple stock. They claim that it does not affect their reviews, but I've seen yesmen who are less obsequiously fawning than "writers" like Pogue.
"It is difficult to say whether Apple’s position with developers will remain strong if Android continues to gobble market share. But various surveys have tried to gauge which smartphones developers plan to write apps for in the near future, and the iPhone often scores very high."
I don't know what surveys the authors are referring to, as they don't list sources, but I doubt multiple surveys are needed to deduce mobile developers are interested in the iPhone.
Apple's store is terrible too, a couple random thoughts as to why:
The only way to find apps is the top-selling charts. Which means there is extremely strong downward pressure on pricing(since the charts are sorted by volume not gross), and any app which is not mass-market and cheap enough to hit the charts is going to have trouble.
There is no way to demo apps, seriously what the fuck.
The market is essentially a free-for-all, apple does a little bit of quality control, but essentially you have no idea what to expect when you download an app.
Apple is extremely restrictive and ambiguous about the types of apps it allows, if something is borderline it's not worth developing because apple could reject you depending on what kind of mood the reviewers are in.
If apple is serious about selling app's it needs to be more proactive and do things like a publisher would.
Take notes from Steam:
-Much more and better curation
-Much better communication with developers
-Sanity in pricing
-Sales/bundles and assistance with marketing
-More exposure and ways to discover niche apps
4 comments
[ 2.3 ms ] story [ 27.5 ms ] threadOnly to top it all off with a paragraph on one developers tough love relationship with Apples "hands-on approach to approving software" (read: anticompetitive, arbitrariness).
I don't know what surveys the authors are referring to, as they don't list sources, but I doubt multiple surveys are needed to deduce mobile developers are interested in the iPhone.
The only way to find apps is the top-selling charts. Which means there is extremely strong downward pressure on pricing(since the charts are sorted by volume not gross), and any app which is not mass-market and cheap enough to hit the charts is going to have trouble.
There is no way to demo apps, seriously what the fuck.
The market is essentially a free-for-all, apple does a little bit of quality control, but essentially you have no idea what to expect when you download an app.
Apple is extremely restrictive and ambiguous about the types of apps it allows, if something is borderline it's not worth developing because apple could reject you depending on what kind of mood the reviewers are in.
If apple is serious about selling app's it needs to be more proactive and do things like a publisher would.
Take notes from Steam: -Much more and better curation -Much better communication with developers -Sanity in pricing -Sales/bundles and assistance with marketing -More exposure and ways to discover niche apps