Why would any serious developer who is concerned by making a serious product, who believes in building a name for their company and their products and looking at a sustainable business model push out iterated versions of the same app charging money over and over again just to be in the release list?
This sounds more like something that people not used to running a working business model might do and something that will not work in the long run...
Relying on release date, if you're running a business, is not something that I would recommend - and what responsibility does Apple have towards the developers who solely relies on this? None as I see it...
Allthough I think it might be a good idea for Apple to put in a "recently update" sorting option, I do believe it's a good idea to remove the updates from the "recently released" list, since the incentive to release an update should not be based on increasing sales but rather on improving the quality and features of you app...
As a developer your loyalty should not be leaning towards new presumptive customers but rather against those who actually paid for your app in order to build a customer base that in return is loyal to you and your company (and it's products...)
But I might be wrong... Perhaps everyone is going to flood the store with version 1 clones of the same app now and customers will buy into that with their eyes closed and wallets wide open?
It just that I think that anyone who tries this tactics will ulitimatly fail in the long run and will not afford to keep such tactics up...
Then again, I'm a bit naive perhaps...
There are lots of different types of businesses, and there's no one business model that works for all of them.
The great majority of the apps in the store now, not just the crappy ones, are hovering between 99 cents and 1.99. That's in line with the small, cheap toys hanging on an end-cap in the checkout lane in a department store.
The people who make those toys have a workable business model. Their mission is to provide their customers with an item, bought on sight and on impulse, that will make their kid happy for a few minutes. They do not try to establish a brand (though they'll often pay to borrow one from an entertainment company). They do not try to make a product that will last forever. They don't publish press releases, buy advertising, or try to get Consumer Reports to review their 99-cent toy.
Occasionally, out of the blue, one of these toys will become wildly popular for a short while, but there doesn't seem to be a way to predict it, or make it happen. The business plans of the small, cheap, toy companies don't depend on it.
There are lots of different types of businesses, and there's no one business model that works for all of them.
The great majority of the apps in the store now, not just the crappy ones, are hovering between 99 cents and 1.99. That's in line with the small, cheap toys hanging on an end-cap in the checkout lane in a department store.
The people who make those toys have a workable business model. Their mission is to provide their customers with an item, bought on sight and on impulse, that will make their kid happy for a few minutes. They do not try to establish a brand (though they'll often pay to borrow one from an entertainment company). They do not try to make a product that will last forever. They don't publish press releases, buy advertising, or try to get Consumer Reports to review their 99-cent toy.
Occasionally, out of the blue, one of these toys will become wildly popular for a short while, but there doesn't seem to be a way to predict it, or make it happen. The business plans of the small, cheap, toy companies don't depend on it.
Yes, but for them nothing will change if the updates don't show up right?
Their model will not crumble and their existance on the appstore will not alter anything for anyone else - so instead of updating they will create new v. 1 apps... But they don't represent the majority of the apps that are constantly updating right?
I fail to see your point here, sorry... Or perhaps I missread your post?
I do believe though that releasing v. 1 iterations of 1 app (without really changing anything) will not work in the long run...
And as soon as you need to change stuff - things will slow down...
I do not think that everyone will be able to maintain the speed in pushing out updates if they are forced to make completely new versions of their apps - some might, but overall... I don't think so...
And the thing that will happen, I think, is that once you flood the store with apps that do the same thing, customers will get bored and look for something else (just look at the fart-apps or the sound-grenade-apps) and then you still end up with having to create a new concept.
I fail to see your point here, sorry... Or perhaps I missread your post?
Your question was "Why would any serious developer who is concerned by making a serious product, who believes in building a name for their company and their products and looking at a sustainable business model push out iterated versions of the same app charging money over and over again just to be in the release list?"
That's just not the goal, or the business model, of a lot of developers. They just want to make a kid happy for a few minutes, and make some money at it. It's a sustainable model, but you have to do whatever it takes to be on that end-cap.
That's just not the goal, or the business model, of a lot of developers. They just want to make a kid happy for a few minutes, and make some money at it. It's a sustainable model, but you have to do whatever it takes to be on that end-cap.
Ok, yes - my reply was to the posts reading that everyone will flood the store with v. 1 versions of the same app, the way they're doing with updates today... The point I was trying to make was more leaning towards the fact that I don't believe we will see the same ratio on this behavior as seen with the updates since it was not just the "keep a kid happy for 5 minutes"-apps that we're constantly updating...
And the fact that it's harder to make a new app than just do an update (that is increasing the version number versus changing name, new icon, and whatever might be needed)...
And of course there are different models on the store for making money - I just find it hard agree with people building their model on the whim of how the appstore is constructed and then complain when it changes - it goes with the territory, if you rely on someone else for your money and have no control yourself whatsoever, you shouldn't be upset once that is not the case anymore - you should be happy it lasted as long as it did... Since, if your business model relies on the release date and the release date doesn't work anymore that's just a part of your model. It works as long as it works, and it's not sustainable...
And there's nothing that indicates that pushing out the same app over and over again as a v. 1 app will work either, since it's not been done yet and who knows what Apple will and will not allow...?
I think it's pretty clear than any loophole that exists to boost promotion, from putting an "A" at the beginning of your App name, to pushing out frequent updates, etc, will be exploited. My point is if new Apps get more exposure, people will just produce new Apps to make money. It's not about good business practices, it's about people who want to make a quick buck will game the system....
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.
I am done replying to this thread.
Exactly. People abused the system and this change is GREAT!
yeah - I think this change is for the better as well...
I do agree with you all that this is better. I just think it's a short term solution to the spammer problem. There needs to be a better way for consumers to filter out the good stuff in the noise of crapware out there.
I think Apple is trying this with a Genius type recommendation solution. However, that tends to only target the mainstream stuff, nothing in the long (very long) tail of apps that are good but haven't caught traction.
My main point is that we shouldn't be content with how limited the app store is for presenting our products.
I do agree with you all that this is better. I just think it's a short term solution to the spammer problem. There needs to be a better way for consumers to filter out the good stuff in the noise of crapware out there.
I think Apple is trying this with a Genius type recommendation solution. However, that tends to only target the mainstream stuff, nothing in the long (very long) tail of apps that are good but haven't caught traction.
My main point is that we shouldn't be content with how limited the app store is for presenting our products.
Totaly agree - and none of us knows what changes are at play... And the appstore is changing all the time so the changes doesn't come all at once...
That said I do believe it's important for a developer to understand that it's not up to Apple to sell your product... It is up to you as a developer (or publishing company) to do that. They're just providing you with a marketplace to sell your stuff.
Have you ever had a product for sale in another store before (not asking LostInAustin - but anyone who feels offended by apples behavior)? Would you ever dream of going into that store and demand your products to be displayed more properly and at the same time expect the only way for your products to sell would be based on the visibility of the products in that store?
Most stores will display products favorably based on the products popularity - kinda like: "As shown in the TV-ad..." or something like that...
Why Apple should have a responsibility to thousands of developers to market their particular app is beyond me... Still they actually does this in their feature-section which is really great allthough I've never been featured with any of my apps. And that feature section is actually more than I would expect from, or have seen in, any other outlet I've been involved in since I started to do games for computers back in 1996...
Have you ever had a product for sale in another store before (not asking LostInAustin - but anyone who feels offended by apples behavior)? Would you ever dream of going into that store and demand your products to be displayed more properly and at the same time expect the only way for your products to sell would be based on the visibility of the products in that store?
(not asking LostInAustin - but anyone who feels offended by apples behavior)?
I've got no problems with Apple's new policy (if that's what it is), it will probably improve the quality of the AppStore.
I have, however, got plenty of issues with the way they do this. Any business that wants to keep sweet with their developers would do the following;
1) Publish rules of how the appstore works.
2) If they need to make a change, publish it in advance and give people notice time.
3) Make the change.
4) Rinse, repeat.
It's not rocket science, just good developer relations.
Pulling the rug from under people, even if some have been gaming the system, just creates annoyance.
To give you an example, our latest app went live last week. If we had known this was coming, we could have waited and benefited from the increased exposure that new apps now get (although we think we got some benefit from the ranking glitch).
Could you please compress this for me - you're saying stores are taking the responsibility of selling the small business due to their own lack of rescourses to market themselves or the other way around?
Sorry - I don't have the time to digest that article myself...
I've got no problems with Apple's new policy (if that's what it is), it will probably improve the quality of the AppStore.
I have, however, got plenty of issues with the way they do this. Any business that wants to keep sweet with their developers would do the following;
1) Publish rules of how the appstore works.
2) If they need to make a change, publish it in advance and give people notice time.
3) Make the change.
4) Rinse, repeat.
It's not rocket science, just good developer relations.
Pulling the rug from under people, even if some have been gaming the system, just creates annoyance.
To give you an example, our latest app went live last week. If we had known this was coming, we could have waited and benefited from the increased exposure that new apps now get (although we think we got some benefit from the ranking glitch).
Couldn't agree with you more on this.
But this is the way Apple handles thing (and has done from the start) - If you make a decision and choose to do business with them you should investigate and know that this is the case.
I am not saying that it's good or bad or defending them in any way... I'm just saying that this is the case with any venture that you take on. You choose a place and a time and a partner and do what you need to do to make that work. I would never build my entire business on making applications for just one platform, especially not as limited as the iPhone - but if that's your choice, then you need to understand that it's your choice and no one else's - you're not enforced with this choice, you choose it all by yourself...
That doesn't mean that there can't be improvements made - but asking for improvements and blaiming some entity for everything going bad are two different things...
And I know you didn't mean it that way - I'm just rambling on here...
...
Why Apple should have a responsibility to thousands of developers to market their particular app is beyond me...
You are arguing against something nobody says. Apple is a private company, they can do whatever they feel like, they are not responsible in any way. But... hey... we are private companies too, and we can do whatever we feel like.. it's a free market, strong survives, weak dies.
I belong to the half that thinks that Apple is simply shooting itself by doing stupid things. My point is - you can't fight spammers like that. The submittion of the apps can be easily automated (including new icons, text, etc.). The spammers build zombie networks through people's home computers, don't tell me they can't gamble appstore It's just a beginning, we haven't seen some serious onslaught on appstore.
I think Apple needs to rework appstore seriously. Make it pay-per-update, stop these stupid reviews (reviews can be gambled easily), but remove offending apps and close accounts (as youtube does). Instead of primitive "new releases" list implement rich searching and selecting capabilities (like ebay does). implement easy returns (as MS and Nokia stores do). Offer different payment options (like everybody else does).
Otherwise appstore will become just a junkstore. If they wanna shoot themselves, so let them shoot themselves. You think anybody will cry? We, developers, will just walk away and find other better places. Nobody is making drama (at least I don't).
__________________ 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
Could you please compress this for me - you're saying stores are taking the responsibility of selling the small business due to their own lack of rescourses to market themselves or the other way around?
Sorry - I don't have the time to digest that article myself...
I'm sorry, that's just the first article I quickly googled up on the subject; I could have found a clearer one.
Popularity doesn't dictate where a product is placed in a store; it's exactly the other way around. Negotiating for shelf space and location is retail marketing 101. Every distributor negotiates this with the store, even to the point of simple payola. They play hardball on this because they know that the product's visibility at the point of sale is the single most important determinant in sales, and there's no effective substitute.
For lots (most?) of us, the app store market is like that.
I'm sorry, that's just the first article I quickly googled up on the subject; I could have found a clearer one.
Popularity doesn't dictate where a product is placed in a store; it's exactly the other way around. Negotiating for shelf space and location is retail marketing 101. Every distributor negotiates this with the store, even to the point of simple payola. They play hardball on this because they know that the product's visibility at the point of sale is the single most important determinant in sales, and there's no effective substitute.
For lots (most?) of us, the app store market is like that.
Yeah - but the negotiation of your spot... Doesn't that take time, cost money and most importantly imply that you need something to negotiate with? I see people complaining (and I'm not refeering to you) about Apple playing along with the big players... Well, is that strange? Bring something to the table and you're it - if not you're not... how would this situation with the AppStore be anything different? And most importantly, why would it be anything different?
And I'm not talking about popularity in the AppStore - I'm talking about popularity in general... You got something that everyone wants and you make an iPhone app with that - great. If not, what do you have that no one else has apart from a well written application with really good content that no one knows anything about?
Sorry - but the AppStore, like everything else, is just about the reality of things...
And you can become popular and big on that store without any outside influence - but it's not Apples responsibility to make that happen...
Initially, I was hurt by this move (if true). I have managed so far to miss out on this release date trick and had this taken away from me with my latest updates (my first attempt at it).
Apple reviews the apps. They police it, so if they deem it's a clone of an existing app (likely a similar package name, or at least traceable back to the same developer) and can have another excuse to reject an app.
I like that it levels the playing field, and it's only fair that new apps get the chance for their one time promo period on new release.
Having said that, I think it's unfair that 1-2x rejected app for first time developers don't have a current date at time of submission. I personally was 4 weeks behind the 8-ball when my 1st app was finally approved, but was too old to be seen.
Edit: Of course, it's already been said that this very reviewal and rejection will take it's toll on reviewing time, but at least they'll get the message after a few rejections.
I can't believe that people think this is somehow a good step by Apple. If apps that spam people by regular updates is a problem, then deal with them in the review process... can't the reviewer have the brains to say "this is a useless or trivial update", and reject it? They reject new apps with a lot more scrutiny; would be fine if they applied that to updates.
If you really want to highlight new apps, then have a label on release date which says "New". If they really want to separate new apps from updated apps, then have a different Sort By field which is default to the current "Release date" model, and people can sort by "New Apps" if they want.
Just changing stuff from one ad-hoc model to another makes no sense, and really makes it hard to imagine that the App Store is a viable market on which to base a business. I had 3-4 updates planned for my app ...and I can't bundle all of them together into one since it would take 3 months to do them all. But it only makes sense for me to keep working on something if it's going to be profitable. Either I resort to in-app purchases for every update (making users angry), or I stop altogether.
Well hopefully there are some other changes going on as well to improve the store...
Better sorting and more categories would be a welcome change...
There's a lot that could be done to improve for both users and developers...
Apple should limit the number of apps and updates per developer license per year. If you want to exceed the limit you have to pay. That would solve both the app spam and update spam problem.
I also really wish Apple would introduce a fee per submission. This would be by far the most effective way of reducing the crapware. Of course there would be a huge outcry and lots of developers would leave, but it would be an excellent change for both users and developers creating quality applications. Hopefully it will happen sometime in the future.
However at this point sadly Apple's marketing department seems to be in love with those huge and exponentially increasing app numbers.
As far as I see it this change of rules will achieve several of Apple's objectives at once:
1) Reduce the load on the reviewers
2) Increase visibility of new apps. This helps both developers and users. It also makes the App Store look a lot more 'fresh'. You see lots of actual new apps rather than the biweekly 'bug fix' updates of old apps. This will have users paying more attention to those 'new releases' lists again.
3) It increases the rate of new app submissions even more.
1 and 2 are good for everybody. But 3 is only good for Apple's marketing department. It will allow them to celebrate 200k apps sooner than they would have without this change.
Hopefully at some point they will stop focusing on quantity as a marketing point so much and will put more emphasis on quality.
Overall I still think this is a change for the better.
Not sure if this was posted yet, but finally received an email back from iTunes connect (below). Looks like I'll be submitting my updates as new apps going forward (at least for major major updates).
I know there's a lot of talk about pissing off customers in doing so, however every major software company does this (including Apple... Snow Leopard), and to keep the existing customers happy - can't you push an update as well as new version?
*************************
The released date displayed on an application page is the date the latest version of that application went live on the App Store. This date will allow customers to be aware of the date this version was released.
On category pages on the App Store, when you choose to sort by Released Date, applications are sorted according to the date the first version of the app went live on the App Store. Sorting by the original app released date creates a list where customers can easily find the most recent additions to the App Store.
Both of these dates are automatically set and cannot be edited in iTunes Connect.
Best Regards,
iTunes Connect Support
Apple, Inc.
1 Infinite Loop
Cupertino, CA 95014 itunesconnect@apple.com
It's just a beginning, we haven't seen some serious onslaught on appstore. 
Linear Mode
