This discussion is all well and good; but I think the issue I raised earlier needs to be addressed, because it undermines most of the other points here: "we're missing a big problem here in the logic. If the goal is to decrease app store clutter this will not accomplish it; because everyone will now make their updates NEW APPS instead of an update. This will lead to more clutter, not less, and a more blatantly redundant and stupid collection of apps in the app store. "
Maybe for free apps. But no way a developer will charge their customers for every single update. And if they do, certainly not in the frequency that they do now. Bug fix, bug fix, bug fix, bug fix, feature addition, repeat will be a thing of the past.
Yeah, the public won't stand for paying for update after update in the guise of a new app, especially if they are tiny updates. I for one refuse to buy Tweetie 2 on principle, for example; they are kicking the people who made the app a success in the first place.
Maybe for free apps. But no way a developer will charge their customers for every single update. ...
The idea of new release is to gain NEW customers. Who cares about old customers if they already paid and will never pay again? With each new app "bikini 1", "bikini 2", "bikini 3" - you are making new sales. With just an update you won't make any more sales.
I think it would be a good thing if they would implement "new updates" section. And the most important - show apps in RANDOM order first. And then have categories: "top paid", "top ranked", "new", "updates", "whatever"
And I agree, that big guys will benefit - because they promote their stuff, while for an indie developer promotion is difficult.
__________________ Game Pack - All-in-1 Game Pack Shinro - A combination of Minesweeper and Sudoku Nibbles - Remake of a classic snake game Hooptie Browser - Humorous web filter
Yeah, the public won't stand for paying for update after update in the guise of a new app, especially if they are tiny updates. I for one refuse to buy Tweetie 2 on principle, for example; they are kicking the people who made the app a success in the first place.
Well, unless the public forms a lynch mob, I don't see how that hurts Tweetie. They weren't going to make any more money off you, anyway.
The idea of new release is to gain NEW customers. Who cares about old customers if they already paid and will never pay again? With each new app "bikini 1", "bikini 2", "bikini 3" - you are making new sales. With just an update you won't make any more sales.
I think it would be a good thing if they would implement "new updates" section. And the most important - show apps in RANDOM order first. And then have categories: "top paid", "top ranked", "new", "updates", "whatever"
And I agree, that big guys will benefit - because they promote their stuff, while for an indie developer promotion is difficult.
If you abandon your applications with every update your early adopters will get angry, and word will spread fast. Thats a good cannibalize yourself.
If you abandon your applications with every update your early adopters will get angry, and word will spread fast. Thats a good cannibalize yourself.
So let them spread the word... I wanna see them spreading the word (doing all the promotion for me)... in exchange for that I will update the app.
And second. Mainly itunes reviews matter, to make bad review they will have to purchase the "app 2" - let 'em do it. good. bunch of bad reviews? here comes "app 3", so they will have to buy another round and leave bad reviews - good. "app 4" will come..
Come on, who Apple thinks its playing with? It's a cut-throat mob out there.
__________________ Game Pack - All-in-1 Game Pack Shinro - A combination of Minesweeper and Sudoku Nibbles - Remake of a classic snake game Hooptie Browser - Humorous web filter
So let them spread the word... I wanna see them spreading the word (doing all the promotion for me)... in exchange for that I will update the app.
And second. Mainly itunes reviews matter, to make bad review they will have to purchase the "app 2" - let 'em do it. good. bunch of bad reviews? here comes "app 3", so they will have to buy another round and leave bad reviews - good. "app 4" will come..
Come on, who Apple thinks its playing with? It's a cut-throat mob out there.
I hate to say it, but its developers like you that give the aid Apple in justifying the restrictions in the app store. You give all developers a bad name.
Not sure it is time to panic quite yet... Maybe this is all just the downstream effects of giving developers a status in iTunes connect, plus not having to manually update your dates when your app is released - think of the time the review team & apple developer relations must be spending just answering our questions...
This is a major major major major change for developers, just like keywords- if it were not just a glitch, wouldn't they put a notice in iTunes connect?
Maybe I'm being overly optimistic tho, but I just haven't seen anything confirmed.
What I really don't get however, is why apple can't get their act together and put another freaking category in iTunes connect that says "notices" so that when it hits the fan, we know what the heck is going on.
Just seems too simple-
"Developers - we have begun the process of changing x, y, z which have caused problems a, b , & c. Please do not panic, the current SLA is 48 hrs."
OR
"Developers - we have begun the process of changing x, y, z, which will totally f you over but we think it is the right thing for our customers, which we know many of you are"
Also - it looks like the AppStore is still totally f'd up. For example, go to the lifestyle category, then release date - the app "Love" is on the first page and was posted in AUGUST of 2008, and has reviews from then as well (side note -I bet love (an app that hasn't been updated since it's original release in Aug '08 is selling like hotcakes right now!!!!)
Then go look at healthcare and fitness- the top app was released in august of '08 (I think)...look at OBWheel- almost 2000 ratings???? No way that one is from the last day or two.
Dunno what the heck is going on...just would like to know so I can see how I'm going to recoup the rest of my I initial investment and finish the year in the green...
I hate to say it, but its developers like you that give the aid Apple in justifying the restrictions in the app store. You give all developers a bad name..
How on earth you know what kinda developer I am? I'm saying what the reality is. If you get a "bad name" - it's your problem. Good developers never have bad name. It's just a messed up market attracts bad software...
__________________ Game Pack - All-in-1 Game Pack Shinro - A combination of Minesweeper and Sudoku Nibbles - Remake of a classic snake game Hooptie Browser - Humorous web filter
I used to think about releasing the next update as a new release, but have so far refrained because:
a) I don't think it's fair on early adopters.
b) It has been the #1 app in its genre for 3 months and I don't fancy diluting/splitting focus.
c) A new app these days just won't be able to generate the same impetus unless, as others have said, you're a big player.
To be honest, updates have only bumped figures up about 10% anyway, so while it's nice for the day it lasts, it's not that big a deal for me personally (although it may be to others). I don't want to risk jeopardising my current sales of my best selling app (still 4-500 a day, without advertising it ever), and zeroing the solid number of reviews its got (~500 in the US, ~300 in the UK).
This is what happens when you try to control a ton of levers in a closed marketplace. Apple tries to micromanage way too many things. So many unintended consequences, most of them bad bad bad.
Regardless, the AppStore model is highly flawed. 90% of the apps out there are pure crap. Why? Because with how Apple sets up and controls the store, constantly pumping out crapware and gaming reviews rewards those with poor ethics. They are probably trying to fix this, but the main problem is their entire concept is greatly flawed.
It was good at first, before the creeps came in. But since they control most of the market levers, the market can't correct itself. We have to wait for Apple to try things. Terrible.
This new change may or may not be good. I'm leaning towards terrible. The spammers will just create new apps, flooding the system even more.
Android is seriously looking like a much healthier alternative at this point. Which sucks as I took a lot of time to become proficient at working with objc and the iPhone environment.
To be honest, they need to separate new releases from new updates and them limit updates to 2x/month. That would prevent weekly spamming of updates and genuinely new releases would be easily visible.
This pretty much just feeds apps that are already successful, and those with major updates get shafted.
It's ridiculous. Complete junk. I did program for almost every smartphone out there (for business, not for selling the apps).
Android is mostly enthusiastic project. The kernel of Android is very good (the phone itself). But the Java layer - is junk. Forcing people to use Java only is a stupid idea. Let them have Java layer, but let C++ guys to program too. Apple was smart in this regard.
Programming for Symbian is a nightmare. You got like 4 string classes for example. When Nokia bought TrollTech I was excited, I thought they will push for QTopia.. - nada so far.
RIM - is Java again. It's quite sophisticated, good for business apps, but I can't imagine a game or utility for example. Their "store" is very weak.
The only alternative I see is Windows Mobile, Microsoft opened their store and I'm gonna port some of my stuff - let's see. MS appstore already have 24-hour returns, pay $99 annually per 5 apps (to battle shovelware). MS was always clever when it came to business. I really wanna see Apple vs. Microsoft clash again. We need them to compete, so they will care about us.
IMHO, iPhone (as device) is the best - and there is no real competition so far. Apple engineers do excellent job (as they always did), but their business and management guys seem to live in some fantasy world.
__________________ Game Pack - All-in-1 Game Pack Shinro - A combination of Minesweeper and Sudoku Nibbles - Remake of a classic snake game Hooptie Browser - Humorous web filter
I hope this is true and agree with apple on this. an update is to improve an app, not get noticed. This hopefully helps out on the long lines for approvals for people who truly have updates for their current customers.
My attitude is if you don't like it go program for android. I am doing both and i see it as money i did not have before so anything is better then nothing. What sucks is people who believe they are entitled to it. Which is a joke.
Actually, I'm a total Java convert from C++, though there's a performance penalty. But if everyone is running Java, then that penalty isn't a competitive disadvantage. I'm sure you could still write appealing software on a hardware base on par with the 3Gs.
It's not that I'm feeling mad and petulant; it's just that I'm worried that the app store's business model isn't stable enough to put all the eggs in that basket.
Last edited by TunaNugget; 11-07-2009 at 12:43 PM.
I hope this is true and agree with apple on this. an update is to improve an app, not get noticed. This hopefully helps out on the long lines for approvals for people who truly have updates for their current customers.
My attitude is if you don't like it go program for android. I am doing both and i see it as money i did not have before so anything is better then nothing. What sucks is people who believe they are entitled to it. Which is a joke.
Thats my 2 cents.
Agree 100%. I heard some dev also updates too much, but their updates are just minor.. which I think should be put on hold till they get more stuffs in. And some even make a plan to update their stuffs on a scheduled basis, like
the dev have a,b,c,d,e update item ready. but he spread it over few updates versions, just to get noticed more.
eg App1.
update 1.1 - add a
update 1.2 - add b
update 1.3 - add c
update 1.4 - add d
update 1.5 - add e
when he can just do, update 1.1, add abcde. which is more fair.
Agree 100%. I heard some dev also updates too much, but their updates are just minor.. which I think should be put on hold till they get more stuffs in. And some even make a plan to update their stuffs on a scheduled basis, like
the dev have a,b,c,d,e update item ready. but he spread it over few updates versions, just to get noticed more.
eg App1.
update 1.1 - add a
update 1.2 - add b
update 1.3 - add c
update 1.4 - add d
update 1.5 - add e
when he can just do, update 1.1, add abcde. which is more fair.
Well i am not against updating too much. But gaming the system is what i am against. This should fix it. And really what is too much once every 17 days .. LOL
But this should stop the people just changing update numbers and saying its and update and delaying those honest developers who are making a better app one update at a time and not trying to game the system.
It's not that I'm feeling mad and petulant; it's just that I'm worried that the app store's business model isn't stable enough to put all the eggs in that basket.
This is the crux of the problem. Apple has a marketplace that is too large and unwieldy to be micromanaged like they still insist on doing.
Are crap-ware providers that spam the store with updates bad? Yes, they are terrible, both for developers and for consumers.
Is getting rid of the ability to game the system with updates a good thing? Yes, most definitely.
However, what I think some of you are sorely missing, is that with how Apple currently manages the store, you only get $$$ a few ways:
1) Spam the store with updates and new apps. Minor dollars, so these guys produce tons of apps.
2) Get previewed/reviewed by a major site like toucharcade, 148 apps, etc...
3) Be a big publishing house that can pay these sites to review your app and buy advertising.
4) Make a great app and miraculously get featured by apple.
That's it. Not bad, not complaining, but that is the environment that they have fostered.
Looking at the Android Marketplace, it is pretty crappy. However, they are going to improve it, and will be listening to the complaints of developers of the App Store.
If Apple weren't so damn controlling, I'd be a lot happier as a developer. The review process is maddening. Changing the rules of the game without any heads up is maddening.
And don't get me wrong, it's a great environment for independent developers. But their policies are not good for the little guy. Almost all of their moves are inevitably going to drive quality independents out, forcing them to either give up money to publishing houses or seek out other platforms.
I agree that Apple is trying to stop the crapware, and that they need to do something. Just think that we are going to see a flood of it now. Hope I'm wrong.
This became quite a discussion
But, the way I see it now, a few days later, things are like this:
1. Half the devs agree with Apple's move, the other half doesn't... So, I guess it was not THAT supid from Apple's side...I just happened to be from the "other half".
2. Indeed, after this change, new apps have better chance at being seen. I can tell from experience, that if your app doesn't make it to Top 100 in these 2-3 days while it's visible at some level, it can never make it there...you can see app's potential for 1-2 days, and after this move your app has a better chance at being seen for such a long time.
It seems to me that this new system will just cause developers to release 1.0. If there is a bug or they want to add new features, they will just remove 1.0 from the store and submit their changes which normally would have been 1.1 as 1.0 of the old App that they removed from the store....
I think the solution to this problem is to charge $50 per review....With your $100 developer fee including two reviews. This will reduce the shovelware, allowing those who submit new apps and updates to stay at the top of the new releases longer, and recoup their $50 review fee. It will also discourage frequent updates to change a splash page, etc.
Last edited by not_too_shabby; 11-08-2009 at 09:26 AM.
I dug into this a bit more. I think there is just a bug in the App Store.
Look at finance-> new releases on your iPhone. Auto Fuel Economics shows up with 9 reviews and one written review back on Nov 2, 2008. The post date is showing up as Sept 8, 2008 and the version is 1.0, yet somehow it is in the new releases.
Now look at iTunes on your computer. It shows up as being released Nov 6, 2009 as 1.0 again with 9 reviews and one written review back on Nov 2, 2008.
It looks to me the version number isn't updating at the moment, and is showing up as 1.0 regardless of the true version number.
Linear Mode
