Exploring the App Store’s top grossing chart

8 Comments

1. 2016-07-21 6:16 am

   dgoemans

   Paid indie titles still do alright, but they’re a niche, and will likely stay that way. The market only responded to user behavior, and that is simple:

   – everyone wants a free lunch

   – some people are willing to dish out large amounts of money on impulse buys (eg: more moves in Candy Crush).

   Combined you have the 2016 app store monetization model.
• 2016-07-21 6:22 am

  moondevil

  Yes the gold rush is long over.

  Somehow many developers still don’t get it that the app store is no different than trying to do product placement on supermarket shelves, while at the same time competing with those 1 euro shops.

  The only one making money out of app stores in a safe way, are the ones selling consulting or by working in companies where the mobile app is just yet another channel for their services.

  One can get rich by finding gold, but selling shovels is much better.
• 2016-07-21 3:29 pm

  darknexus

  One can get rich by finding gold, but selling shovels is much better.

  Not heard that one before, but I like it. Thanks.
2. 2016-07-21 9:08 am

   avgalen

   Major bias detected: You are preselecting on the top grossing chart. Of course the top grossing would not include many indie games. Please point me to any chart from the “old world” where there were many indie games in the top grossing chart!

   It has always been so that most money in software is made by just a few products. I don’t know the exact numbers, but I guess the yearly revenue of just Microsoft Office is roughly equivalent to the entire yearly revenue of the entire iOS appstore. And most niche products are either extremely expensive (to compensate for volume) or gratis (because of ideology from the developer(s)).

   AppStores haven’t hollowed out anything. They have just made distribution of apps a lot easier for developers. Previously indie developers that wanted money had to make a trial/timebombed version of their software and distribute that from their website or unreliable 3rd party hosters and get people to discover that website. Or worse, get their software to downloadsites that add adds/malware. Followed by a way to accept payment and unlock that software. Followed by preventing piracy/cracks.

   That model already was mostly replaced by full free versions with adware in the installer or advertisements inside the software.

   Appstores just made updating/distribution a lot easier while providing API’s for adds and payments. Nothing is stopping (indie) developers from doing it the older ways! The newer ways are just more popular because they are the least burden to developers with an acceptable return compared to previous methods.

   Being an app-developer is like being a singer/performer. Everyone is looking at the top 0.1% that is making all the money from consumers. But you are far more likely to end up singing/performing at weddings and company-retreats just getting by…or just doing it as a sidejob for fun.
• 2016-07-21 3:40 pm

  Alfman verbose=1

  avgalen,

  Nothing is stopping (indie) developers from doing it the older ways! [/q]

  There are rather obvious cases where this is blatantly false and platforms are strongly impeding and even actively blocking us from “doing it the older ways”. On some platforms (ie metro, ios) you don’t even have a right to compete with them. IMHO this practice would be outlawed if politicians gave a damn about free/healthy markets.

  [q]The newer ways are just more popular because they are the least burden to developers with an acceptable return compared to previous methods.

  Lets be honest, platform app store popularity has been driven by bundling. The garbage that was IE5 was popular too, but not because developers actually liked it.

  To be clear, I don’t have a problem with app stores when their existence is competitive rather than coercive, as long as it’s a fair playing field and there are many sources competing for both users and developers. People should be encouraged to use the stores they want and developers should be free to choose the ones with the best terms for them. An oligopoly of dominant corporations having nearly total control over the rest of the market is EXTREMELY unhealthy and I think it’s naive to pretend otherwise.

  Edit: I feel we’re already past the point of return; the market power has become so imbalanced that I don’t see much chance for a natural recovery.

  Edited 2016-07-21 16:00 UTC
• 2016-07-21 9:38 pm

  leos

  There are rather obvious cases where this is blatantly false and platforms are strongly impeding and even actively blocking us from “doing it the older ways”. On some platforms (ie metro, ios) you don’t even have a right to compete with them. [/q]

  And? You don’t need to publish on those platforms if you don’t want. You can always publish for the desktop. The mobile platforms are a new market so you can’t really complain about restrictions on a market that didn’t even exist previously.

  Lets be honest, platform app store popularity has been driven by bundling.

  Platform app store popularity has been driven by: 1

  1. Convenience – This is partially due to bundling, but mostly due to consistency of the experience.

  2. Uniformity – Why sort through a million different websites and purchasing systems when you can just manage one?

  3. Centralized updates – The old system of everyone doing their own updater is a nightmare. Good riddance.

  4. Security and Safety – While not 100%, you can trust that an app store app went through at least some vetting.

  5. User reviews – Review system to evaluate apps (even if it isn’t great).

  6. Developer convenience – No more need to run your own distribution, payment, updating infrastructure.

  [q]People should be encouraged to use the stores they want and developers should be free to choose the ones with the best terms for them. An oligopoly of dominant corporations having nearly total control over the rest of the market is EXTREMELY unhealthy and I think it’s naive to pretend otherwise.

  Maybe. Or the result would be less user friendly than what we have now. The explosion of apps (many of them indie “scratch my itch” types) shows that really it is not EXTREMELY unhealthy as you say. It is way easier now for an indie dev to get into publishing software than it used to be. Sure it would be nice if there was no fee attached to developers signing up, but then again it keeps out the absolute garbage right off the bat.
• 2016-07-22 1:33 am

  Alfman verbose=1

  leos,

  And? You don’t need to publish on those platforms if you don’t want. You can always publish for the desktop. The mobile platforms are a new market so you can’t really complain about restrictions on a market that didn’t even exist previously. [/q]

  But you can’t honestly think that’s a good justification for having things be that way…

  Let me attempt to change your perspective by using similar facts in a new hypothetical context. Let us say flying cars came out, and the manufacturers started using technological measures to lock them down to only accept fuel at licensed gas stations. Hacking the car to remove this restriction would void the warranty. Flying cars are a new market with very limited choices and some special needs, so buyers might be more willing to accept those restrictions for the perk of having the first flying cars and some gasoline companies will be enticed by the prospects of captive customers. This could set a strong business precedent for other manufactures who will follow suit once they see dollar signs. Manufactures collectively playing along will soon be making fortunes off the revenue from the gas stations that where previously free to operate independently from the manufacturers. There will be some largely disingenuous claims that their services are good for both gas stations and flying car owners, but the truth will be that independent gas stations will become less viable because of the restrictions put in place to take control over their customers.

  So, because of the lack of choice initially and then lack of incentive to create choice later on, this new economy reaches a steady state where fueling restrictions become the norm for all flying cars. In time, it is no longer a new market, the imbalance of control has become too severe to self-correct and all the power will be stuck in the hands of the few players who architected the imbalance to begin with. The market will suffer under oligopoly control and nether the sellers nor the buyers will have much influence over the restrictions that shouldn’t have been there to begin with.

  So now, in this hypothetical universe where the above has happened, there’s this guy on the internet who says:

  And? You don’t need to sell gas for those flying cars if you don’t want. You can always sell gas for older cars. The flying car platforms are a new market so you can’t really complain about restrictions on a market that didn’t even exist previously.

  Do you agree with this comment that corporate restrictions designed to impede commerce are nothing for sellers to complain about? Or is this more likely how you’d feel:

  http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/000/554/facepalm.j…

  [q]Platform app store popularity has been driven by…

  None of your reasons contradict the economic and consumer benefits of having more stores. It seems your complaints are actually about having better stores, and to this end we agree. Having healthy competition could actually help with that too.

  Not only can smaller stores bring more competition and specialization, but a larger percentage of profits going to developers can be reinvested into making apps better instead of going (in)directly into overseas tax havens where app developers will never see it again.

  Edited 2016-07-22 01:46 UTC
3. 2016-07-21 9:27 pm

   leos

   I guess the hollowing out and complete destruction of the indie development world was totally worth it.

   I like how you’ve said this about 4000 times and not once have you provided even one shred of evidence to support why the app store model has been detrimental to indie development.