Skip to main content

Is The App Store In Danger Of Becoming The Next iTunes?

appstore logo

A large factor in the iPhone’s success has been the App Store, an easy marketplace for buyer and seller to come together for the sale of apps. From its original guise as a simple tool the App Store has grown and become more complex as it has become more crowded and the net result is that the App Store is now starting to be a serious obstruction to the distribution of apps.

First of all the obvious problem. As the number of apps available has grown so it has become more difficult for users to find new and useful tools. Search on the App Store is weak and Apple hasn’t really provided a proper remediation for this. Its next move, the introduction of ads to search results, promises to make things worse for everyone.

Then there is pricing. Publishers drove app pricing down in the early days of the App Store, in the race to build sales numbers. Effectively the average sale price of an app in the App Store is zero. Apple introduced the in-app purchase as a way for publishers to better monetise their efforts, but this seems to be of limited success. For the majority of users the compulsion to pay for extra resources or levels just isn’t there. For apps which do sell IAPs in volume the income stream is heavily dependent on a very few users who are heavily engaged.

So now publishers are trying to profit at both ends of the game, with apps that require an upfront purchase and IAPs becoming more common.

That pricing model has deterred several publishers from moving software from the Mac to iOS, primarily because the lack of both control and chargeable upgrades makes the whole development effort uneconomic.

That’s a problem if Apple is serious about making the iPad Pro a true PC competitor. Professional software requires professional levels of customer support and engagement.

Apple’s fix is to provide a subscription plan which will allow an ongoing financial relationship between customer and developer. Maybe. Apple’s definition of ‘Content’ and ‘Services’ as app categories that can utilise the new pricing structure seems weak. Will developers know in advance that their apps will meet Apple’s entry requirements for subscriptions or are they at risk of putting development efforts into apps that Apple then rejects for not conforming to its subscription vision?

Apple hardly has a good record on app approvals, or changing the game whenever it sees fit.

How can this be fixed? Well the first thing Apple probably needs to look at is the mess that is iTunes on Mac and PC. Even the most ardent Apple fan can’t defend this barely navigable piece of bloatware. Ensuring the lessons of iTunes are learnt will help the App Store become a better tool.

That means separating out services into appropriate locations. Professional software needs a professional app store, with quite different pricing structures, the ability to provide trial versions of software and paid upgrades. There should be no free software in this version of the Store.

IAPs should be an ‘either-or’ scenario. Apps should be required to offer a paid, one-off purchase that unlocks all functionality, or be free but offer the ability to unlock content as an IAP. Not both. That prevents user frustration and also poor user experience. Two things that Apple should be able to guarantee as part of its very profitable stewardship of the app experience.

Finally search. This needs to get much, much better. The absence of an advanced search option on the iPhone is a mistake. Users should be able to very closely define what sort of app they are looking for right from the get go. Without this utility search results are painful.

It’s hard to see anything about the App Store as being anything but successful, after all both Apple and developers are raking it in to the tune of billions of dollars every year. Past success is no guarantee of future prosperity and if the App Store becomes a friction point in the buying process things could turn sour very quickly.


Popular posts from this blog

F1: Robert Kubica Impresses In Renault Test Run

The car may be old but its the performance of the driver that's the story here. Robert Kubica returned to F1, after a fashion, earlier this week with an extensive test run in a 2012 Lotus Renault F1 car at Valencia.
The age of the car and the circuit were likely determined by F1's current rules which ban testing, but the reason for Kubica being in the car is far more interesting. Considered by many to be a potential World Champion and certainly one of the fastest drivers of his generation, Kubica's F1 career seemed to be over after a 2011 crash whilst driving in the Rally of Andora. His Skoda Fabia was penetrated by a guardrail in the high speed accident partially severing his right arm.
Up until last year Kubica has been competing in rallying, with the expectation that the limited movement in his repaired arm would prohibit a return to single seater racing.
So this week's test is both interesting and confusing. Interesting because Kubica completed 115 laps of the ret…

F1: Robert Kubica's Williams Test Asks More Questions Than It Answers

Comparing driver's times at a tyre evaluation test like last week's Abu Dhabi event is difficult at the best of times, but when trying to assess the performance of a driver who has been out of the sport for six years, that difficulty level is raised even higher.
On the face of it Robert Kubica's test for Williams was a success. Fastest of the three Williams drivers present the headlines look promising. However, taking into consideration the different tyres used to set those times muddies the water considerably.
Kubica ran a three lap qualifying simulation on the new 'hyper-soft' tyre - which should have given him a two-second advantage. Correcting for tyres it would appear that Kubica was significantly slower than Sergei Sorotkin - who was on the harder 'soft' tyre - and marginally quicker than Lance Stroll, the team's only contracted driver.

Stroll's family fortune currently funds Williams, so there' no chance that he will be anywhere but in a…

Panos Panay's Defence Of Microsoft Surface Hardware Sounds Eerily Familiar

This weekend I went out with my ten year old daughter to select a laptop for her school year beginning in January. The schools requirements are quite specific, requiring a Windows 10 device, with a preference for a touchscreen and a stylus. She chose a Surface Pro, after trying a large number of different options. Having seen the way I use my own Surface Pro - and tried it herself there was only ever going to be two options - and the other was a Surface Laptop.
I tell you this so that you understand I am a buyer of Microsoft's products through choice, not compulsion. I'm on my third Surface device now. 
So when Panos Panay dismissed reports of the death of the Surface hardware line, I was very interested to see exactly how strong these denials were. Especially how they reflect what has gone before. To whit: Windows 10 Mobile.
Panay claimed that Microsoft is in hardware for the long haul. Almost exactly mirroring the words of Terry Myerson, when he claimed Windows Mobile was g…