Forum Posts Feed
The demise of native coded apps
< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >
Posted by MadaboutDana
Dec 9, 2020 at 09:21 AM
Very interesting, Martin – this confirms what I’ve thought about IT markets (specifically consumer-focused ones!).
Apple has managed to corral the high-end markets for itself, more or less (and the new M1-based hardware is going to accelerate that drive, I suspect).
It’s a pity, then, that so much iOS software was sold so cheaply in the early days. Although you do get some fascinating outriders (Omni Group, I’m looking at you!).
A number of Windows developers flourished back in the 1990s/2000s by producing modestly (but not cheaply) priced apps that worked extremely well. There are still a few of these developers around (Incomedia with Website X5, for example – a very popular product; the various note-taking apps already widely discussed on this forum).
But tracking software prices over the years is a study in the vagaries of market demand (or unexpected lack of it, in some segments).
Martin Pilkington wrote:
tightbeam wrote:
>There isn’t anything more frustrating than a wonderful app that is
>>restricted just to Mac users or just to Windows users. Cross-platform
>>apps let developers maximize their customer base, so who *wouldn’t*
>code
>>for everyone? A slight performance degradation seems like a worthwhile
>>tradeoff. Nothing I do is so important that it must be done in a
>>microsecond versus a millisecond.
>
>If you would like an answer from a developer who has just released a
>native Mac app (Coppice), it’s actually pretty simple: I want to write
>the best app possible. I *could* open myself up to the Windows market,
>or even Linux, by using something like Electron, but that would lead to
>a lower quality product. Each platform has opinions as to the look and
>feel of apps, and their respective native toolkits provide a lot of that
>for free. You get none of that with a cross-platform toolkit. Some allow
>you to get pretty close but only with additional work on the part of
>developers, which is work not spent on features or other bug fixes. Some
>users can put up with the non-native feel, but do I as a developer want
>to build an app people merely “put up with”? Not really.
>
>As for why the Mac, it’s partly because that’s what I use and know how
>to develop for. It also arguably provides the best native toolkit of any
>platform, which is why the Mac generally has a higher proportion of
>native apps.
>
>There’s also a question of just how much each platform is worth. For
>example, while Apple’s platforms are significantly smaller in market
>share than their competitors, they often have a massively
>disproportionate market share of “people willing to buy 3rd party
>software”. This is why a company can build a Mac app and be successful,
>but port it to Windows and have it make less money, despite Windows way
>more marketshare. It’s also why so many apps appear on iOS before
>Android (if they ever appear on Android). The costs of developing for
>each platform can be the same, but the relative financial importance of
>platforms can vary.
>
>That said, it’s worth noting that this can depend a lot on the type of
>software. If you’re building server software then you’ll get way more
>success on Linux or Windows. Business software (especially for large
>businesses) will likely have lots of success on Windows, and for games
>you almost have to go for Windows. Meanwhile software for individuals,
>smaller businesses, or creative users often does way better on the Mac.
>
>Hopefully gives at least one view as to some of the reasons why
>developers go native.
Posted by Hugh
Dec 9, 2020 at 10:49 AM
MadaboutDana wrote: “...tracking software prices over the years is a study in the vagaries of market demand (or unexpected lack of it, in some segments).”
And not just demand - supply too. Contributors to this forum have noted before how, before the Millennium and for a time afterwards, single pieces of relatively straightforward software, though perhaps more complex to develop, (Wordperfect? Lotus 1-2-3? Agenda?) could cost at least £100, sometimes considerably more, Of course in those days we consumers were still charged significant amounts for operating system upgrades too.
Personally, I think one of the turning-points in app pricing, as well as in some other respects, was the launch of Scrivener on the Mac in the mid-late Noughties. Aiming for more volume - presumably - Keith Blount and his colleagues priced it low for a writing app - £35 or thereabouts whilst existing rivals were still up in the £70 to £100 region or beyond - and it seemed to set a new price-point. Soon after other new Mac applications followed suit. Competition amongst suppliers had an effect.
(There were also some other rather cool aspects to the Scrivener marketing approach, I believe. Keith initially wisely positioned Scrivener not as a pure writing app but as a kind of prep tool for Word, WordPerfect etc. It was described as “a drafting tool”. So Scrivener was marketed not to challenge the giants of the writing app market-place, for which in any case, at least initially, it did not have the functionality, but to be used alongside them. In my day, we used to call this “the puppy-dog strategy”!)
Posted by tightbeam
Dec 9, 2020 at 12:28 PM
Thank you for this explanation.
Martin Pilkington wrote:
tightbeam wrote:
>There isn’t anything more frustrating than a wonderful app that is
>>restricted just to Mac users or just to Windows users. Cross-platform
>>apps let developers maximize their customer base, so who *wouldn’t*
>code
>>for everyone? A slight performance degradation seems like a worthwhile
>>tradeoff. Nothing I do is so important that it must be done in a
>>microsecond versus a millisecond.
>
>If you would like an answer from a developer who has just released a
>native Mac app (Coppice), it’s actually pretty simple: I want to write
>the best app possible. I *could* open myself up to the Windows market,
>or even Linux, by using something like Electron, but that would lead to
>a lower quality product. Each platform has opinions as to the look and
>feel of apps, and their respective native toolkits provide a lot of that
>for free. You get none of that with a cross-platform toolkit. Some allow
>you to get pretty close but only with additional work on the part of
>developers, which is work not spent on features or other bug fixes. Some
>users can put up with the non-native feel, but do I as a developer want
>to build an app people merely “put up with”? Not really.
>
>As for why the Mac, it’s partly because that’s what I use and know how
>to develop for. It also arguably provides the best native toolkit of any
>platform, which is why the Mac generally has a higher proportion of
>native apps.
>
>There’s also a question of just how much each platform is worth. For
>example, while Apple’s platforms are significantly smaller in market
>share than their competitors, they often have a massively
>disproportionate market share of “people willing to buy 3rd party
>software”. This is why a company can build a Mac app and be successful,
>but port it to Windows and have it make less money, despite Windows way
>more marketshare. It’s also why so many apps appear on iOS before
>Android (if they ever appear on Android). The costs of developing for
>each platform can be the same, but the relative financial importance of
>platforms can vary.
>
>That said, it’s worth noting that this can depend a lot on the type of
>software. If you’re building server software then you’ll get way more
>success on Linux or Windows. Business software (especially for large
>businesses) will likely have lots of success on Windows, and for games
>you almost have to go for Windows. Meanwhile software for individuals,
>smaller businesses, or creative users often does way better on the Mac.
>
>Hopefully gives at least one view as to some of the reasons why
>developers go native.
Posted by Andy Brice
Dec 9, 2020 at 10:45 PM
Apple makes most of its money on hardware. So it is in their interest to push down the price of software to make the hardware more attractive. It has reached the ridiculous point that some people consider $0.99 ‘expensive’ for an iOS app. The Mac app store also seems in a race to the bottom.
The accepted wisdom amongst software entrepreneurs now is to sell B2B (business) web-based software by subscription and avoid B2C (consumer) software like the plague.
I wonder if Apple dropping its commission on the app store from 30% to 15% for smaller developers was because they are worried about too many developers shifting to web based products (I don’t know, I’m just speculating).
—
Andy Brice
https://www.hyperplan.com
Posted by satis
Dec 10, 2020 at 03:13 AM
Andy Brice wrote:
> It has reached the ridiculous point that some people consider $0.99 ‘expensive’ for an iOS app.
Generalizations like that can be fraught. “Some people” don’t necessarily represent the worldwide iOS app store market as a whole certainly, given the much higher overall revenue for iOS apps while selling a decided minority of hardware. According to a recent report from app analysis firm App Annie, the amount of money spent on the iOS App Store and the Google Play Store hit an estimated $112 billion in 2020, with about 65 cents out of every dollar spent on mobile app stores in the iOS App Store.
With more expensive hardware, Apple generally has customers more willing to spend on apps, and on subscriptions. Honestly, if you want to complain about people not wanting to pay $0.99 on an app you’re about five years late and talking about the wrong platform.