You can always find someone who does well and make a news article out of it. I didn't do nearly as well. :) My take on it is that you can succeed in the following ways:
1. Have an already established brand in other platforms
2. Be first in some area (too late now)
3. Somehow establish critical mass of users to have a lot of reviews/downloads. Lot's of reviews - top ratings - lts of eyeballs.
4. Have an app that people show to each other and thus make it popular (like a fun game).
5. Have some really unique features (they will get duplicated though)
For example, there is about a dozen apps for managing passwords (with encryption to protect against loss of the iphone). The three that have most reviews, and thus are most popular, are the ones that have estalished brands on Palm, Windows Mobile or Desktop Mac (eWallet, SplashId and 1Password). Others are lingering around (like my Memengo Wallet) with hardly any attention at all. I expect a race to the bottom with brand-names standing on their customer loyalty and thus selling for small sum aroud $3 while no-names will go for free.
Which brings me to the point I wanted to make here: writing software is easier than making people use it, even if Apple handles the sales transactions.
I don't think that will be true. Ever. You can always innovate.There are always new things to do. Or old things to do in new ways. Or so says the idealist in me.
But your other points are really good, especially the marketing one. Just making a very solid app isn't good enough for the iPhone platform. You need a carefully thought out marketing strategy.
Edit: I guess the marketing part is true about everything you do.
I agree with the disagreement. Google was late to search, the iPod was late to mp3 players, the iPhone was late to smart phones, YC was late to investing, etc, etc, etc.
There is limited amount of things which people look at for 1 second and say "oh, I get it". Most of these things are likely already represented. Things that require 5 seconds until the "I get it" moment will require some incentive to spend those 5 seconds - either sky-high ratings, friends advising, known brand etc.
"... There is limited amount of things which people look at for 1 second and say 'oh, I get it' ..."
You are not taking into account new technology and the way it disrupts the market. The technology leaps come in spurts so it is more a case of waiting for the next wave, iterating while you do so.
Of course you can still create an iPhone app that becomes a success. But I imagine on the first they, people were kind of hungry to try the new app store and their new iPhones. They would have bought just about anything (wasn't "Flashlight" in the top 10?). Once they have bought two or three games, how many more will they buy? So coming out with a cool game a couple of months later is a huge disadvantage.
5. Have some really unique features (they will get duplicated though)
Someone told me "You have limited time to make money". Does that time give you enough money? Or can you add another unique feature in that time? I'd like a business that lasts for all time - like coke/wrigley - but technology revolutions make it impossible. However, it is possible win one revolution...
Unmet demand is the incentive for copying - without oxygen, no competitor can beat you. Do you neglect, alienate or reject any market segment who wants/needs your product (including being too expensive)? Do any aspects of your product (including links in the chain of purchase) turn off customers?
For online software, lots of clever people can reverse engineer it; and customers can learn about it, trial it, adopt it and integrate with their lives/businesses. These are buffers, not "barriers to entry". It takes some time, but doesn't stop competitors - if there is unmet demand.
The best way to stop your competitors from serving your customers... is to serve your customers.
Ugg, I just want to get into the program. I applied two weeks ago. Has anyone heard anything on how long it takes, or if they're even accepting new developers for the app store?
I applied day 1, was accepted the day the 3G was released.
I'm working on a game in the evenings; here's my blog for anyone interested in its progress http://daves-game.blogspot.com/
We're (I have 4 kids) moving to the other side of the continent in a few weeks, so things are likely to be on hold until we're done.
I think this is a pretty clear picture of the power of the iPhone platform. There are a couple of things going for the iPhone platform that make it inherently better to develop for than any previously designed platform:
1. Streamlined distribution. The app store makes it super easy for anyone to download applications from anywhere in the world. With 8 million sold worldwide X the amount of bored people trying to kill time by finding a new toy = a lot of users and downloads. In fact, the iPhone store had over 25 million downloads in the first month.
2. MONEY! Since iTunes has already a well established user base that has grown accustom to micro transactions for things like songs and videos, they're more conducive to impulse buying.
3. A REAL operating system. While the mobile platform has inherent disadvantages like screen real estate and control, it makes up for it by providing a sandboxed platform that has real power over the whole system.
I think you'll see a lot of people have success. Some of it will be because the App Store gets so many eyeballs, and some of it will be because people have established customer bases to sell to. But I think its still very possible to be very successful even if you're still building your application. You have to realize, that while some people are having a lot of success just by word of mouth and eyeballs, you can't depend on Apple to do it all. Get out there, promote your application, get word of mouth and your user base going, and make a solid app, and you can be up there with any of these applications. When two apps have comparable features and prices, it all comes down to who is doing the work outside the App Store.
I don't think it's a question of which apps are still missing. The iPhone platform (to abuse a much abused word) is pretty much in the same spot as the Facebook one was last year.
This means that even though the early apps will have a definite advantage, there will always be an opportunity to make a 'better' tip calculator (contrived example) and new opportunities will open up as the platform matures.
IMHO, iPhone apps are a much bigger deal than facebook apps since all the latter seem to do these days is clutter your profile and make you waste time.
So, honestly, go out there,
1. find a problem (like mass transit directions) 2. solve it with an iPhone app. 3. PROFIT !!!
The problem with that is the (potential) specificity for a town, which dilutes the user numbers. I'm not sure how many I could get here in Munich where I can test it on a daily basis. Any New Yorkers have ideas for how such a service should work for their city?
But the question is, why would you choose to solve that with an iphone app, instead of just a website?
I can see the point in iphone apps that use features you can't get in the browser, like access to gps or the accelerometer etc, but other simple apps seem to be there just because they can be, rather than filling any real need.
ironically enough, an iPhone app would probably be more successful. A website would require marketing, but an iPhone App does its own marketing, through its name, icon and the community word of mouth. Plus there are advantages in UI design that could make a native app more helpful in getting the info quicker.
A website would require marketing, but an iPhone App does its own marketing, through its name
This is a myth. And people will realize in a couple months once there are tons of apps in the App Store. You will need marketing wherever you go. For word-of-mouth, your app needs to be really stellar. And that is true, everywhere.
I suspect the more appealing part about the App Store is that more people will want to actually pay for your app right away if you provide them with enough quality. It feels like the expected payoff with the App Store would be higher for individual developers this way as opposed to making viral apps on facebook and monetizing via ads.
I don't think its a myth. Apple really has done a lot of the marketing on behalf of developers. Everyone iPhone user knows where to get their iPhone apps. Just that right there is huge. Yeah, you still have to work hard outside the store, but setting up the location, the trust (no need to worry about Apple) and the ease of use is a marketing marvel that webapps just don't have. I think its hard to ignore the advantages. Going above and beyond that will help you immensely, but at least you don't have to replicate Apple work.
Well, I can't deny all of this because it's true. However, it is not very useful ultimately since everything is relative. Everybody on the App Store gets these advantages. Yes, there is a central location to look for but when you have thousands of apps and you are not in the top few, you are essentially back to the user already knowing about your app.
Maybe this is actually the Steve Jobs closed system vs. Android open system sort of debate. Sure, you could make a webapp, but could you make a lot of money off a webapp? If you only had the time to work on one, I know which one I would pick. There may be more users of those other platforms, but how do you get them to use your app? Apple's closed system does a lot of the work for you.
The game I'm making has a target market of me. I'm building a game I'd like to play of the bus on the way to work.
I'm a big fan of the really slick side-scrolling shooters (think R-Type), but my biggest influence for this is my favourite Vic=20 game, Astroblitz. It's also a good excuse for me to get my pencils out and get some artwork happening - something else I used to love doing but haven't for years.
So, my motivation is pretty personal, and if it turns out anyone else likes my game too, that's a (quite nice) bonus.
There are still lines for the iPhone at my local Apple Store in the Woodlands mall, and I am one of the few people at my company that has an iPhone, and we are an IT consultancy.
It makes sense, actually. If you do programming full-time, your brain is too tired to think about how to best market your product, etc. When I program too much for too long, I feel like I turn into a machine myself, finding it hard to interact with humans.
1. Have an already established brand in other platforms
2. Be first in some area (too late now)
3. Somehow establish critical mass of users to have a lot of reviews/downloads. Lot's of reviews - top ratings - lts of eyeballs.
4. Have an app that people show to each other and thus make it popular (like a fun game).
5. Have some really unique features (they will get duplicated though)
For example, there is about a dozen apps for managing passwords (with encryption to protect against loss of the iphone). The three that have most reviews, and thus are most popular, are the ones that have estalished brands on Palm, Windows Mobile or Desktop Mac (eWallet, SplashId and 1Password). Others are lingering around (like my Memengo Wallet) with hardly any attention at all. I expect a race to the bottom with brand-names standing on their customer loyalty and thus selling for small sum aroud $3 while no-names will go for free.
Which brings me to the point I wanted to make here: writing software is easier than making people use it, even if Apple handles the sales transactions.