Comments on: App is crap http://blogs.reuters.com/small-business/2010/03/02/app-is-crap/ Grow your own Thu, 26 Mar 2015 12:32:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: JustNeal http://blogs.reuters.com/small-business/2010/03/02/app-is-crap/comment-page-1/#comment-1794 Fri, 19 Mar 2010 22:16:09 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/small-business/?p=1849#comment-1794 As a software developer this argument makes total sense to me. Over the last few years we have moved away from standalone operating system specific applications to multi-platform web based applications. Perhaps the insecurity here is – will the user pay the same money for a web based application? Presently, the user gets a (false) sense of ownership by paying, downloading and installing something. It’s theirs – on their phone. They get to show it off to their friends and the like. It’s harder to create this false sense of ownership using the web delivery method.

]]>
By: Astralis http://blogs.reuters.com/small-business/2010/03/02/app-is-crap/comment-page-1/#comment-1733 Thu, 04 Mar 2010 17:04:17 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/small-business/?p=1849#comment-1733 I completely agree! Those who are furious with this post are Apple app developers! They can’t see the forest for the trees.

]]>
By: msuster http://blogs.reuters.com/small-business/2010/03/02/app-is-crap/comment-page-1/#comment-1731 Thu, 04 Mar 2010 08:52:59 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/small-business/?p=1849#comment-1731 I find it amusing that people who disagree with my point of view feel that they have to resort to personal attacks. I have not invested in competing platforms as some of the commenters assert. My point is that we’ve had this debate before when the IT world moved from mainframes to client/server. We had it again with the advent of the World Wide Web. We had this debate with the proliferation of Java, “build once, run everywhere.” Over time having heterogeneous environments is a huge burden for software developers and a waste of time, money & effort for most companies.

If you disagree with this, fine. It’s my point of view – nothing more. But spare me your personal attacks. They don’t make your arguments sound any more valid. Open debate fuels innovation.

]]>
By: binstar http://blogs.reuters.com/small-business/2010/03/02/app-is-crap/comment-page-1/#comment-1729 Thu, 04 Mar 2010 05:26:11 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/small-business/?p=1849#comment-1729 Brave man – writing an article that has anything to do with Apple and isn’t effusive with praise.

I thought this was a sensible, rational and fair article. I don’t actually totally agree with it since i think fundamentally running a program provides a different end user-experience than loading a web-based application but I can’t imagine how anyone reasonable could disagree that having your entire business model depend on a partner that’s never even heard of your company is just asking for trouble.

]]>
By: HBC http://blogs.reuters.com/small-business/2010/03/02/app-is-crap/comment-page-1/#comment-1728 Wed, 03 Mar 2010 21:00:04 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/small-business/?p=1849#comment-1728 iPhones are cute. Apple’s business model isn’t all that. It costs money to develop for their insular platform. Then they assume it’s OK to take a large chunk of your otherwise liquid revenue for the privilege of you providing content on their superficially cute but increasingly parasitic channel.

Now, if you can really justify the costs of developing an app as well as a well-run website with cross-platform usability, then good on you. It means you have money to burn.

But if you have to choose, as most economically-minded people do these days, then nurture your own content on your own online venue first, always. Make it cross-platform, second. Apps would come in a distant third.

Apps will come and go, and some people will be gone with them when they inevitably go. Theirs not to reason why.

]]>
By: nickjacket http://blogs.reuters.com/small-business/2010/03/02/app-is-crap/comment-page-1/#comment-1727 Wed, 03 Mar 2010 18:08:15 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/small-business/?p=1849#comment-1727 What I hear Mark saying is that it’s needless and costly to establish a business that depends on establishing its reach on a platform application. The platform can change, the OS can change and to really put a spin on it, Apple can change its terms that invite developers into a new “app” regime. Take Macintosh system 6 for example. It had a huge following with plenty of “apps” for free. Then came system 7. The shakedown was immense. As developers had to join the developer$ club, many free and easy apps disappeared or simply wouldn’t work on the new system OS. I won’t go into the shakedown transition between system 9 to OSX. Each new Apple OS prior to OSX would promise better stability. Then OSX replaced the unstable “stable” OS altogether.
Unlike the Mac OS, iPhone users establish their usage through a contract with a wireless carrier. This landlord approach is an income dependent model that can have a crushing effect on users and apps if the US economy has a larger negative in the near future.
Apple is still the snotnose kid that only establishes standards for itself. The browser app is the way out of this infinite loop of serial numbered channel dependence as the browser is the standard that transcends the manufacturer of serial numbered boxes that are dedicated pieces of hardware and their OS’s.

]]>
By: Hillock http://blogs.reuters.com/small-business/2010/03/02/app-is-crap/comment-page-1/#comment-1726 Wed, 03 Mar 2010 17:07:54 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/small-business/?p=1849#comment-1726 Once again I read an article written about the iPhone by someone who doesn’t understand what it is. He has tried to put in a box with one purpose and gone on to say that purpose is better served using a different method.

One has to take a look at the entire picture. One must ask – does this device do what I want? Does it go beyond a single solution? Who is using the device?

All this did was take a look a one market segment and give an opinion on it, not what the iPhone is as a whole.

]]>
By: comment http://blogs.reuters.com/small-business/2010/03/02/app-is-crap/comment-page-1/#comment-1724 Wed, 03 Mar 2010 15:48:26 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/small-business/?p=1849#comment-1724 Dude, I aint buying no 99c apps. That’s stupid. I’ll go to the web-page for free.

]]>
By: Fmarvez http://blogs.reuters.com/small-business/2010/03/02/app-is-crap/comment-page-1/#comment-1723 Wed, 03 Mar 2010 15:19:13 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/small-business/?p=1849#comment-1723 This article is dead on. As a web developer myself, the mobile market is a huge chunk of future revenue and expansion in the industry. Applications create silos which limit your marketability to one channel (be it Apple, Google, etc), silos are not cost effective nor are they good for users.

Focus on targeting as many platforms and access methods as possible for the cheapest cost and you’ve got a great start at a business plan. Letting someone like Apple have complete control over your application with no appeal methods and objective application approval is akin to playing with fire, eventually you’ll get burned.

]]>
By: MeeerkatMac http://blogs.reuters.com/small-business/2010/03/02/app-is-crap/comment-page-1/#comment-1720 Wed, 03 Mar 2010 14:31:47 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/small-business/?p=1849#comment-1720 What self-serving Andriod promoting dribble. I’m sorry about your poor investment choices, but please, we’re not all so stupid. The most successful consumer application delivery system in history is “a bad choice”? Eliminating smut from the venue of apps is a major barrier to market? What, are you suggesting Android is the preferred vehicle for delivering smutty applications?

You miss the point of Apps for the iPhone entirely. They are not predominately for redisplaying websites on mobile devices. They are dedicated applications that may or may not use web content. Your examples are all wrong and woefully inappropriate. A clothing boutique wouldn’t develop an App to display their webpage. They’d simply cater their webpage to both mobile or desktop endpoints. This is a simple webpage design option, not an App development. What they might do instead is create an App that let users shop securely and easily at their store in a manner that offered a much greater user experience than available on a web interface.

Your comparison of Gmail to Microsoft Outlook or Entourage is equally ridiculous. These Microsoft products are part of a business productivity suite that cost consumers several hundred dollars. Gmail is a “free” consumer-based email offering. People choose Gmail because it’s “FREE”, not because it performs better than Outlook or Entourage.

You’re not fooling anyone Android spammer. I’m sorry you invested in a platform that will have real trouble competing against the enormous success of the App Store. But please, don’t insult everyone’s intelligence by suggesting that this makes the App Store a “bad” way to go.

]]>