Five Reasons Not To Get Swept Up In App Madness
from the apps-can-be-copied-too dept
One of the things I didn't get a chance to discuss in my recap of Midem was that there was definitely an undercurrent of people thinking that "apps" are the "answer." There were a bunch of app companies there, and they were swamped with interest, and lots of people seem to be looking at Apple's "success" with the iPhone app market as a chance to regain control, and with it, something to charge for directly. While I don't think many people were expecting apps to be "the answer," there was certainly an impression that apps are going to be a big part of the future. As I've made clear in the past, I'm pretty skeptical that this sort of app madness is really sustainable (or all that lucrative). There are a few reasons for this:- Very, very, very few apps make very much money. We've been suggesting this for a while, and the numbers seem to support it: there really isn't that much money being made directly on selling apps, even on the iPhone. Sure, lots of apps may be selling in aggregate, but very few individual apps make very much money.
- Apps are still loss leader/low-margin leaders for hardware makers, and they know it. Sure, Apple wants app developers to be happy, but first and foremost it wants to sell more hardware, which is where it makes its money. And it knows as well as anyone that the more powerful the device is, the more reasons there are to buy the hardware. That means the hardware makers actually have incentive to push the price of apps down (or encourage free apps). This pressure will only get stronger over time.
- Apps can be copied too. This is the one that seems the most obvious to me, but seems to get very little attention from those who believe totally in the app revolution. Apps are still digital files and they can (and are) copied regularly. Thinking that putting everything into an app is an easy response by itself to unauthorized copying is a bit short-sighted.
- Future standards will break down some walls. While it won't happen that fast, and probably won't happen in all areas where apps exist, things like HTML 5 will certainly break down the walled gardens found on various app stores. Yes, native apps give a better user experience for now, but web standards will get better and better and allow more to be done via the web, totally bypassing any app gatekeeper (and paywall), just like Google did with Google Voice on the iPhone. We've seen this before. The desktop used to be ruled by client-side apps, and then lots of those apps went (or are in the process of going) web-based.
- App overload. While there is a group of folks who constantly get new apps, an awful lot of people get a few apps, get themselves comfortable and then never go back to buy another app. There are really only so many apps most people need, and once they have them, there's little reason to keep getting more.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: app store, apps, business models, control, mobile
Companies: apple
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Apple on Apps
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and then there was SOURCEFORGE
now just go back to this unreasoned and unresearched document , i stopped as the skew towards ONLY propriatary seems evident in the article and THINK MORE WILL YA.
I make an app cause i need or want it OR i help one as such, others i might suggest a feature i want and so on.
IF i am a company and i like the direction an app is going i might donate a lil ( far less then i would to buy a commercial equivalent ) and wella MO PROFIT TO ME.
so in closing who cares about proprietary apps when we can get , have and use opensource FREELY AND LEGALLY
i hope ms succeeds in closing every windows hole on pirates so that pirates STOP USING IT entirely
more linux users will there be in droves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Might be a good market for the apps developers eventually...
This will allow apps developers to market to any smart phone so good apps will make money. I just don't see the hardware manufacturers being able to control the market much longer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Get it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apple & Java
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Apple & Java
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apps are the new Ringtones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Apps are the new Ringtones
Yes. The only difference now is that people kept getting ripped off by the providers of the ringtones and learned how to do it themselves (or got others to do it for them). It will be the same for apps soon, just like how Google is doing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Apps are the new Ringtones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Apps are the new Ringtones
Yes.
But not paying for ringtones. Paying for 15 seconds of a full song you've already paid for ... that's what people don't care about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
just like Google did with Google Voice on the iPhone...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Farmville
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]