>> I think the reason people are reluctant to spend money on apps is the same reason they are reluctant to spend money on music or movies no matter who convenient it's made for them - people don't see value in digital goods as easily as they see it in physical goods.
I wholeheartedly disagree. By your logic, people wouldn't pay money for Windows, or Photoshop, or thousands of other software packages. Oh, and Steam! People pay $20 or more on Steam for some mediocre stuff.
The problem with paying for apps is two-fold: Frankly, 99% of apps out there aren't worthy of my money. Most of the few I actually pay for (Spotify and LastPass come to mind), I don't pay for for the app, it's for the service behind the app.
Second, app developers have done this to themselves, in two ways - first, putting out just really shitty, awful apps (especially games) that aren't worth money.
Also, in perpetuating a race to the bottom and setting the expectations way too low on price. I saw somewhere that Jobs thought the perfect price point for an app is $10 (I might be wrong on the source, but someone said it). I agree with this. If you really believe you have a great app, price that shit accordingly. If you have a great app and price it at $10, if you get a third of the downloads you'd get at $3, you're still ahead. And, your users will feel like part of an exclusive club, and invite their friends to be part of it.
Of course, this is my opinion, and no one ever listens to me.
You are right. Most apps are utterly useless and not worth a single penny.
Many people have no problem with paying for software.
For instance, Liine can charge $49.99 for their Lemur iPad app because the touch screen really brings something to the table. However, a dedicated control surface will beat a generic touch screen all the time. Even with a Lemur, most people would prefer real hardware with dedicated encoders, knobs, buttons and faders.
In the same vein, there are actually not that many instances where an iPad or smartphone version of an application is superior to its desktop version. In fact, in most cases, the touch screen experience is frustrating, fiddly and utterly annoying.
> If you have a great app and price it at $10, if you get a third of the downloads you'd get at $3, you're still ahead.
The problem is that the way the app stores work turn it into an all-or-nothing game. If you get a third of the downloads you would've gotten at a lower price point today, you're so far down the charts that you'll get fewer the next day, and fewer the day after that, etc.
At least, this is the reasoning behind the race to the bottom mentality. Not sure how true it actually is.
There are a few things inherent in the design and policies of the app store that pushes prices to be low.
One is that there are no demos possible. You can't make an app that works for 30 days and then stops working. You can sort of do this by limiting the app and having it fully unlocked by in-app purchase. I really don't mind that model at all, because I just see it as a demo version.
Another limiting policy is that there is no upgrade pricing. The app is just the app.
>> I wholeheartedly disagree. By your logic, people wouldn't pay money for Windows, or Photoshop, or thousands of other software packages. Oh, and Steam! People pay $20 or more on Steam for some mediocre stuff.
The mistake in his logic is generalizing to all digital goods. People are hesitant to pay for mobile goods relative to others. Look at Angry Birds. In terms of hours of enjoyment (or distraction for your kids), it is worth much more than $.99 based on what you would pay for something as basic as a Slinkee. However, it took me almost a year of playing only the demo versions to finally buy the full game. This may be a positive in terms of people resisting purchase of frivolous goods, but the point about mobile goods being valued less than their physical or non-mobile counterparts stands.
What's the most expensive app to ever hit the top charts for iPhone/iPad purchases? My guess is that it is substantially cheaper than the most expensive best-selling software.
Final note: I wholeheartedly agree with you that the proportion of useless to useful apps is likely the most important factor in this valuation difference.
I wholeheartedly disagree. By your logic, people wouldn't pay money for Windows, or Photoshop, or thousands of other software packages. Oh, and Steam! People pay $20 or more on Steam for some mediocre stuff.
The problem with paying for apps is two-fold: Frankly, 99% of apps out there aren't worthy of my money. Most of the few I actually pay for (Spotify and LastPass come to mind), I don't pay for for the app, it's for the service behind the app.
Second, app developers have done this to themselves, in two ways - first, putting out just really shitty, awful apps (especially games) that aren't worth money.
Also, in perpetuating a race to the bottom and setting the expectations way too low on price. I saw somewhere that Jobs thought the perfect price point for an app is $10 (I might be wrong on the source, but someone said it). I agree with this. If you really believe you have a great app, price that shit accordingly. If you have a great app and price it at $10, if you get a third of the downloads you'd get at $3, you're still ahead. And, your users will feel like part of an exclusive club, and invite their friends to be part of it.
Of course, this is my opinion, and no one ever listens to me.