iPhone snobbery in Corporate world

Yahew · 25-01-2012 11:58am

The iOS figures are $4B to 550,000 apps. About $7K an app. Probably about $20 per paid app on average. I bet paretos law applies here. With 20% of paid apps taking 80% of revenue. Anyway, its not that noone is making much money, its just that on average people arent.

srsly78 · 25-01-2012 12:19pm

Draupnir wrote: »

Why are you limiting the graphics discussion to 3d graphics? The vast majority of smart phone apps will not contain 3d graphics. The iPhone SDK with Core Animation and it's pattern for UI design and development is by far the best system that I've come across between iOS, Android and WP7 for high quality 2d graphics.

It is an absolute nightmare to port a working iOS app that contains things like draggable views, rotating views or animated views to Android at the moment. It works, but it is certainly not an enjoyable experience for the developer and doesn't lend itself to clean code or design patterns either.

That's your own fault for tying yourself to a proprietary framework (this is the whole problem with Apple). You could have used a common API instead. OpenGL is also used for 2D by the way, both android and iphone frameworks are built on it. You could make exactly the same argument the other way around, about how certain android APIs are not present on the iphone.

Everything is gonna be done in HTML5 soon anyway, so you have wasted lots of time learning those APIs.

<- has made loads of money off mobile development, but not sold a single app

Yahew · 25-01-2012 12:29pm

srsly78 wrote: »

That's your own fault for tying yourself to a proprietary framework (this is the whole problem with Apple). You could have used a common API instead. OpenGL is also used for 2D by the way, both android and iphone frameworks are built on it. You could make exactly the same argument the other way around, about how certain android APIs are not present on the iphone.

Everything is gonna be done in HTML5 soon anyway, so you have wasted lots of time learning those APIs.

<- has made loads of money off mobile development, but not sold a single app

OpenGL is a 3D framework - it would be astronomically harder to use it to animate a standard UI element on iOS than using Core Animation. Although not impossible, you could use Cocos2D. The other option is OPENGL primitives, which means recreating the UI Element as textures in an OpenGL view.

The point of API per platform is to make that platform easier to develop for. Thats what OS releases, from a developer point of view, are for. HTML5 is designed by commitee.

HTML is going nowhere. We've heard this rubbish for years and years. HTML is a layout language and with some scripting, basically a primitive language like JS. It has limited access to phone internals. It is a limited API. Its UI is non-standard and it looks fake.

For layout - webzines - maybe. In a native shell. Otherwise, no.

In fact I just this week technically architected a conversion of an App from PhoneGap to iOS native, because of crap reviews on the store. We arent really changing the user journey - per the clients request - just making it "more fluid".

( and since we are doing this argument by credentialism I am a consultant with two of London's largest Digital agencies, although I work for myself too).

Draupnir · 25-01-2012 12:44pm

srsly78 wrote: »

That's your own fault for tying yourself to a proprietary framework (this is the whole problem with Apple). You could have used a common API instead. OpenGL is also used for 2D by the way, both android and iphone frameworks are built on it. You could make exactly the same argument the other way around, about how certain android APIs are not present on the iphone.

I'm not making the point that APIs are not present on Android, I am saying that the Android equivalent is tosh, relatively speaking. UI building and development is tosh, relatively speaking.

How is that relevant to this discussion? I think it is very relevant, since the poor quality 2d tools and frameworks make it extremely painful and practically unachievable to build Android apps that have the same quality of finish as their iPhone version. This impacts on the marketability and brand value of the apps.

Draupnir · 25-01-2012 12:45pm

Yahew wrote: »

OpenGL is a 3D framework - it would be astronomically harder to use it to animate a standard UI element on iOS than using Core Animation. Although not impossible, you could use Cocos2D. The other option is OPENGL primitives, which means recreating the UI Element as textures in an OpenGL view.

The point of API per platform is to make that platform easier to develop for. Thats what OS releases, from a developer point of view, are for. HTML5 is designed by commitee.

HTML is going nowhere. We've heard this rubbish for years and years. HTML is a layout language and with some scripting, basically a primitive language like JS. It has limited access to phone internals. It is a limited API. Its UI is non-standard and it looks fake.

For layout - webzines - maybe. In a native shell. Otherwise, no.

In fact I just this week technically architected a conversion of an App from PhoneGap to iOS native, because of crap reviews on the store. We arent really changing the user journey - per the clients request - just making it "more fluid".

100% agreed. HTML5 for mobile apps is lipstick on a pig.

The Corinthian · 25-01-2012 1:05pm

Yahew wrote: »

the point of branded apps is to direct people to peoples stores, add more to the experience. The webdev boom didnt stop because people didnt want websites, I bet most companies will have an app at some stage. In terms of revenue, it helps to have a brand.

I'm not suggesting that the app market is a complete waste of time. I'm suggesting that the app market where the app itself is the primary revenue generator is for the vast majority of cases a complete waste of time.

Neither am I suggesting that we will see the app industry collapse onto itself and go the way of WAP, however as with the dotcom, there will be a painful readjustment in the market when a lot of the VC money dries up, both for apps that are the primary revenue generator and many branded apps in their current form.

Other than new revenue models forming, we will also see a ruthless consolidation of the brochureware app market, likely mirroring what happened to the Web.

That said the iOS app store has generated $4B for devs. As long as there is a chance to make money, people will try to make money.

If you do the math, it's actually a pretty poor return for the number of developers, apps and hundreds of hours that have been spent to produce, market and support these apps.

srsly78 wrote: »

<- has made loads of money off mobile development, but not sold a single app

We used to make similar jokes about some of the start-ups we were developing for back around 1999. Word to the wise; what followed wasn't pretty.

Draupnir wrote: »

100% agreed. HTML5 for mobile apps is lipstick on a pig.

Perhaps, but it's likely that it will eventually become the weapon of choice for brochureware 'branded' apps in the future.

jester77 · 25-01-2012 1:05pm

Draupnir wrote: »

100% agreed. HTML5 for mobile apps is lipstick on a pig.

I wouldn't agree. HTML5 is the best solution for a lot of services. We have ios, android and HTML5 apps where I work. The HTML5 app offers the best of everything, you can deploy it in seconds using your CI server, you can react and fix bugs quickly and there is no relying on third party marketplaces for users to get your app.

Apps have their place but most companies are developing apps when an HTML5 would be a better solution only because apps are the current "buzz" word.

Have a look at the Financial Times HTML5 site to see what is possible!

Draupnir · 25-01-2012 1:32pm

jester77 wrote: »

Have a look at the Financial Times HTML5 site to see what is possible!

FT chose HTML5 because they don't want to share any revenue or content with Apple, not because HTML5 has any natural advantage as a technology.

jeromeof · 25-01-2012 2:16pm

Great response, but I would like to point out some mistakes:

The Corinthian wrote: »

iTunes forces users to register a credit card, the Android Market does not and so many Android users couldn't even pay if they wanted to without going back to register a credit card (the hassle of which will stop many from bothering) and no 'culture' of paying for anything.

This is not true, iTunes has a great prepaid market with iTunes cards. My 14 year old son who has an android phone and an iPod touch has complained numerous times that he can go into a shop and buy an itunes card and then buy whatever app he wants for his ipod but for his Android phone he has no way of paying for apps. If google put a bit of effect into some prepaid credit system for the marketplace this would help considerable.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Android has not been around as long as the iPhone

This is actually not true either, since we are talking developer SDK's. Android 1.0 was released in Nov 2007 Read announcement here while the IOS SDK was not released until Mar 2008, see Engadget at SDK event. The problem was nobody cared about Android back then and v1 of Android was really aiming at competing with the Blackberry and Nokia markets (physical keyboards etc). It wasn't until Google saw where the money was and switch the SDK to better focus on developing touch screen UI's with V2.1 and at the same time Verizon put together a huge campaign in the states (Around the Motorola Droid) that people bought Android handsets and developers then finally had a reason to use the SDK.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Fortunately, this has improved dramatically, and at this stage is is pretty easy to write a 'one version fits all' Android release for most types of app.

I don't think this is the case yet either, a huge number of very limited Android phones have flooded the market, they have poor screen resolutions (320x240) (Cheap Samsung Mini/Y etc, ZTE Racer), are using old ROM's e.g. 1.6 (Experia X8) and are typically very slow and have almost no space for Apps (or their data). While some Apps will scale and handle these limitations, lots still have problems and because these handsets are so popular if you were targeting Android you have to built to a very low common denominator to cover as much of the market as possible. The other alternative for developers is to develop 2 version of your Android app (e.g. like Dolphin with a HD version for the higher end Android phones).

Overall I would agree that Android has come along a long way, has some excellent developer/design guidelines now (for ICS going forward) and it will be an interesting battle going forward for the hearts and mind of users and developers. Also, I wouldn't count Microsoft out of yet, Windows 8 is very nice and could assist greatly into the popularity of their mobile platform.

splashthecash · 25-01-2012 2:20pm

manual_man wrote: »

this sh1t is seriously startin to piss me off. The amount of times i'm seein a new app advertised, only available for iphone. What the fcuk is wrong with these people??? how many million android users is there worldwide??? The latest snobby gits to do this are Setanta Sports, watching the match there on telly, my ears prick as the commentator mentions the new Setanta Scores app. Available for?? You fcuking guessed it. iphone only. wànkers

Solution: Buy an iPhone

Atomic Pineapple · 25-01-2012 2:28pm

splashthecash wrote: »

Solution: Buy an iPhone

But they're just so dull....................:p

Yahew · 25-01-2012 2:29pm

The FT is a website basically, so that works for HTML. Also they have a brand. So getting featured in the store was not a big deal. Also they wanted to avoid the Apple subs theft.

Professey Chin · 25-01-2012 2:29pm

draffodx wrote: »

But they're just so dull....................:p

But look at my background! :pac:

mickoneill30 · 25-01-2012 2:29pm

splashthecash wrote: »

Solution: Buy an iPhone

Buy an iPhone for the odd app that isn't available for Android????? So you have two phones????

What a useless solution.

Yahew · 25-01-2012 2:30pm

The buy an iPhone posts are not helpful. Otherwise the discussion is good.

The Corinthian · 25-01-2012 2:40pm

Draupnir wrote: »

FT chose HTML5 because they don't want to share any revenue or content with Apple, not because HTML5 has any natural advantage as a technology.

Actually it has a few 'technological' advantages; principally it is cheaper to develop and manage.

Let's be honest; even in the area of 'branded' apps, there are many examples that would work as well, if not better, as HTML5 sites. In many cases, the fad to have 'an app' has overtaken reasoned analysis of the market that such apps are supposedly serving and in many cases users actually prefer to go to a site, rather than download an app.

jeromeof wrote: »

This is not true, iTunes has a great prepaid market with iTunes cards.

I've actually no idea how this is supposed to invalidate my point.

This is actually not true either, since we are talking developer SDK's. Android 1.0 was released in Nov 2007 Read announcement here while the IOS SDK was not released until Mar 2008, see Engadget at SDK event.

I was talking about the actual devices. Who cares about the SDK's - indeed, no one did.

I don't think this is the case yet either, a huge number of very limited Android phones have flooded the market, they have poor screen resolutions (320x240) (Cheap Samsung Mini/Y etc, ZTE Racer), are using old ROM's e.g. 1.6 (Experia X8) and are typically very slow and have almost no space for Apps (or their data). While some Apps will scale and handle these limitations, lots still have problems and because these handsets are so popular if you were targeting Android you have to built to a very low common denominator to cover as much of the market as possible. The other alternative for developers is to develop 2 version of your Android app (e.g. like Dolphin with a HD version for the higher end Android phones).

Poor screen resolutions, etc actually make little difference in most cases. Relative layouts and fonts, and a more intelligent approach to graphical assets means that you can write many apps that cover the vast majority of devices, without resorting to multiple versions.

Of course, this approach will not cover all apps, but then again I never said it would.

Also, I wouldn't count Microsoft out of yet, Windows 8 is very nice and could assist greatly into the popularity of their mobile platform.

I'd agree. Not hugely impressed by their performance so far, but I'd not rule them out either.

muckwarrior · 25-01-2012 2:43pm

Zaph wrote: »

I was speaking to someone recently who's developing an iOS app for a major site. He told me that once it's developed the Android app will be much quicker and easier to develop because of the work that will already have been done on the Apple api. Maybe this is true of all apps?

This is generally true for a couple of reasons.

Many non trivial apps will require a framework to be developed around them e.g. server side components, databases, APIs etc. Once these have been developed for the first app, subsequent platform ports can also use them.

Clients generally don't know exactly what they want and sometimes they'll change their mind on the specification half way through. This can require development work to be scrapped and re-done. If you're developing 2 or 3 apps in parallel then you waste 2 or 3 times the amount of time than if you only did 1 first. When the app has been completed and released then you can start working on porting it to other platforms without worrying about the spec changing.

So in short there are some very good reasons for building an app for one platform first. Unfortunately, in Ireland at least, iOS is still the leading platform in terms of app downloads so companies are still prioritising it when it comes to releasing an app. They are slowly catching on, but it's still quite shocking how many companies don't even have an Android phone to test a build when you send it to them.

Edit: Only read page 2 when I wrote this, didn't notice the other 4 pages in between

The Corinthian · 25-01-2012 2:43pm

johnjack1067 wrote: »

Just because you cant afford an iPhone .

splashthecash wrote: »

Solution: Buy an iPhone

Moronic comments that add nothing to the discussion other than the conviction that those making such comments should not be encouraged to ever breed are not welcome. Any further comments of this nature and I will take action against the authors.

As for the rest of you, don't feed the trolls.

Yahew · 25-01-2012 2:49pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually it has a few 'technological' advantages; principally it is cheaper to develop and manage.

The "easier" to develop is a value judgement, since fans of native ( like myself) would say the same. I would definitely suggest HTML5 for text layout intensive apps, or indeed for forums - the boards mobile site is good.

However, what most people would lose out on:

1) Native UI, and native UI look and feel. FT clearly doesnt have this, it doesnt need it because it has a brand.
2) App store featuring. The best bet for normal companies to go large.
3) Background tasks - at least in iOS. I am not sure if HTML 5 apps work in
4) Push notifications, in-app purchases etc. And more. Thats why they have a
5) Lower level access to the much more comprehensive API ( in C often) available on the device.

And more

you can put HTML in a native shell, in which case you could use native.

jeromeof · 25-01-2012 2:57pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

I've actually no idea how this is supposed to invalidate my point.

You talked about iTunes advantage being credit cards registered, I believe this is a much worse issue for Android. The fact you have to have a credit card to buy an App.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I was talking about the actual devices. Who cares about the SDK's - indeed, no one did.

SDK's are what developers use and if anyone had cared then Android had a way for developers to build applications before the iPhone. Obviously no one cared. The point is the SDK's was there and therefore its not true to say that IPhone development started before Android.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Poor screen resolutions, etc actually make little difference in most cases. Relative layouts and fonts, and a more intelligent approach to graphical assets means that you can write many apps that cover the vast majority of devices, without resorting to multiple versions.

It really depends on what the is trying to do and paid App mostly have to do something special for people to actual pay for them, so for example, not having an auto-focus camera can be a problem for some Apps or a low res screen for other apps. It's not that I disagree, its that you can be developer a "crappy" app for all android handsets (and the marketplace is full of them) but if you want to do something special with your app, not having a "standard" set of capabilities leads to problems, this has always been a problem and is still a problem now because of these cheap handsets. Be it limitations with your app on particular handsets or just the very effort of trying to have as many different handsets on hand to test. Its probably a better strategy for a paid App to just focus on the high end (SGII, Google Nexus) but then you miss out on a huge market.

Draupnir · 25-01-2012 3:11pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Let's be honest; even in the area of 'branded' apps, there are many examples that would work as well, if not better, as HTML5 sites.

That is absolutely true, there is a large amount of native apps across all platforms that have no business being native apps and are basically web sites wrapped up.

The Corinthian · 25-01-2012 3:19pm

Yahew wrote: »

The "easier" to develop is a value judgement, since fans of native ( like myself) would say the same.

I am speaking from a commercial point of view. That you're a fan of native is your business, but from a commercial viewpoint, you're just a resource.

TBH, I think you're missing my point. If you have a brand, when does it make sense to let people interact with you via your Web site and when does it make sense to let people interact with you via a desktop application they have to download and install on their PC?

Many apps out there are frankly overkill.

you can put HTML in a native shell, in which case you could use native.

The Qt approach to Nokia WRT.

jeromeof wrote: »

You talked about iTunes advantage being credit cards registered, I believe this is a much worse issue for Android. The fact you have to have a credit card to buy an App.

I said that iTunes is a far more mature marketplace - just because I didn't list everything under the sun hardly makes it incorrect. In reality where I was incorrect was that credit card registration is actually not enforced on iTunes.

SDK's are what developers use and if anyone had cared then Android had a way for developers to build applications before the iPhone. Obviously no one cared. The point is the SDK's was there and therefore its not true to say that IPhone development started before Android.

You are not exactly correct as the Android SDK released in November 2007 was only a preview release - there wasn't a lot you could do with it, AFAIR. The actual Android 0.9 SDK (beta) was released in August 2008 - after the first iOS SDK release in March of that year.

It really depends on what the is trying to do and paid App mostly have to do something special for people to actual pay for them, so for example, not having an auto-focus camera can be a problem for some Apps or a low res screen for other apps. It's not that I disagree, its that you can be developer a "crappy" app for all android handsets (and the marketplace is full of them) but if you want to do something special with your app, not having a "standard" set of capabilities leads to problems, this has always been a problem and is still a problem now because of these cheap handsets. Be it limitations with your app on particular handsets or just the very effort of trying to have as many different handsets on hand to test. Its probably a better strategy for a paid App to just focus on the high end (SGII, Google Nexus) but then you miss out on a huge market.

So, we've moved away from screen resolution issues and are focusing on specific device capabilities...

Certainly in that context you're correct, but most apps don't use particularly specific device capabilities.

Yahew · 25-01-2012 3:45pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

So, we've moved away from screen resolution issues and are focusing on specific device capabilities...

Certainly in that context you're correct, but most apps don't use particularly specific device capabilities.

They do, all the time, in fact.

HTML is just a layout language. JS is just a script. Unless the clients are technically able to understand you will spend your entire time with HTML apps explaining why you cant do a) and b) looks awful and c) stutters and is too slow.

Facebook, Twitter etc. Apps, not web apps.

The Corinthian · 25-01-2012 4:02pm

Yahew wrote: »

They do, all the time, in fact.

I was talking about the Android SDK and fragmentation - I've no idea why you've decided to segway into HTML5.

JS is just a script.

And? That's it's a script - code interpreted at runtime, rather than compiled into native bytecode - means what exactly? That it won't be super fast? Might not really need to be. That it can't access device specific API's? Again, might not need to, and if it does even scripts can do this if the device API is exposed - look at Nokia WRT, for example.

Unless the clients are technically able to understand you will spend your entire time with HTML apps explaining why you cant do a) and b) looks awful and c) stutters and is too slow.

That's what having a competent analyst who can explain this to them and free up the development resources to do their jobs is for.

Yahew · 25-01-2012 4:09pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

I was talking about the Android SDK and fragmentation - I've no idea why you've decided to segway into HTML5.

That is actually how the conversation was going.

And? That's it's a script - code interpreted at runtime, rather than compiled into native bytecode - means what exactly? That it won't be super fast? Might not really need to be. That it can't access device specific API's? Again, might not need to, and if it does even scripts can do this if the device API is exposed - look at Nokia WRT, for example.

You might think the first point makes sense, but let me repeat once again. My latest consolation is to cost the re-write of an app, an app which needs no device interaction at all, from html to native.

That's what having a competent analyst who can explain this to them and free up the development resources to do their jobs is for.

Very hard to do when clients are interested in "look and feel" and smoothness, and have existing app which is not up to scratch. I have recommended HTML ( internally to a native shell), for a magazine type layout.

Twitter, and Facebook - web sites both - have native apps. Thats telling. If you go to a Brand and give them something that looks crap, thats half the battle lost. This is not liked by technical guys, but it is the fact of the matter.

The Corinthian · 26-01-2012 12:49pm

Yahew wrote: »

That is actually how the conversation was going.

It's still pulling what I said completely out of both context and even subject.

You might think the first point makes sense, but let me repeat once again. My latest consolation is to cost the re-write of an app, an app which needs no device interaction at all, from html to native.

I cannot comment on your projects as I don't know the requirements or the personalties involved to make any kind of judgement. A native app may be required for reasons that are not immediately apparent to anyone who's not in marketing (having an app 'installed' rather than a site 'bookmarked' makes all the difference for some). Or it could be a decision based upon personal preference, fashion, incompetence, client politics or supplier up-selling. Or something different altogether.

Very hard to do when clients are interested in "look and feel" and smoothness, and have existing app which is not up to scratch. I have recommended HTML ( internally to a native shell), for a magazine type layout.

I never suggested it is easy.

Twitter, and Facebook - web sites both - have native apps. Thats telling. If you go to a Brand and give them something that looks crap, thats half the battle lost. This is not liked by technical guys, but it is the fact of the matter.

Twitter and, especially, Facebook use native apps because they have requirements that cannot be met using a mobile Web site - simple as that. On Symbian, on the other hand, Facebook uses a HTML5 client (WRT), because there it can meet those requirements.

It's not about using a native app or not. Or using a multi-platform framework or not. It's about meeting requirements within budget and time in as optimum fashion as is possible.

srsly78 · 26-01-2012 3:27pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

We used to make similar jokes about some of the start-ups we were developing for back around 1999. Word to the wise; what followed wasn't pretty.

You mean the dotcom bust or what? I work as a contractor now, and am happy to write software for anyone that pays my rate. Doesn't really matter if it's a stupid idea or not!

Example: I got paid to write a screensaver for windows mobile phones :P And yes, I do actually tell my employer what I think of their ideas.

As for the guys saying html5 is going nowhere: Things change in the software industry. Change with them or get left behind.

edit: Yahew: OpenGL development is more "native" than iphone animation apis. Angry birds and other games etc use OpenGL. Also HTML5 supports OpenGL. It's APPLE that is at the forefront pushing this technology (because they hate flash).

The Corinthian · 26-01-2012 5:17pm

srsly78 wrote: »

You mean the dotcom bust or what? I work as a contractor now, and am happy to write software for anyone that pays my rate. Doesn't really matter if it's a stupid idea or not!

Example: I got paid to write a screensaver for windows mobile phones :P And yes, I do actually tell my employer what I think of their ideas.

Indeed. We're all handmaidens to the whores of Mammon in the end; we can advise against stupid ideas, attempt to convince them to 'amend' them so that at least they don't end up taking a bath on them, but ultimately it's a fool and his money...

Example: I did a strategy-analysis gig a year ago with a start-up who had an idea which they wanted to execute in a manner that made no sense commercially. Additionally, they underestimated the necessary IT budget (and didn't even try to estimate the marketing one). I told them all this at the first meeting.

Needless to say the business model changed dramatically in the course of the following few months, but even so I think these guys are ultimately doomed to failure. Still, I got them to the point where they were able to raise a nice chunk of VC which was what they paid me for.

Yahew · 26-01-2012 5:40pm

srsly78 wrote: »

You mean the dotcom bust or what? I work as a contractor now, and am happy to write software for anyone that pays my rate. Doesn't really matter if it's a stupid idea or not!

Example: I got paid to write a screensaver for windows mobile phones :P And yes, I do actually tell my employer what I think of their ideas.

As for the guys saying html5 is going nowhere: Things change in the software industry. Change with them or get left behind.

edit: Yahew: OpenGL development is more "native" than iphone animation apis. Angry birds and other games etc use OpenGL. Also HTML5 supports OpenGL. It's APPLE that is at the forefront pushing this technology (because they hate flash).

Wrong again. I wont rehash the HTML5 debate, we've heard that since Netscape was going to hollow out Windows and "be" the OS. The movement is obviously the other way. Ask Instagram. Basically an upload service and it doesnt even have a website, never mind a web app.

All objective C is compiled natively, as is any C or C++ you would compile on the iPhone. Objective C is C, in fact C. They all run in compiled down byte code on the processor.

OPenGL runs on the GPU, if the GPU can handle it. Core animation can also be pushed to the GPU, if the GPU handles it. The iPhone can handle it.

srsly78 · 26-01-2012 7:02pm

The core animation stuff is written using OpenGL is the point that you are oblivious to.

In the future people will make super-fun-happy frameworks in html5 for guys like you. No big deal.

iPhone snobbery in Corporate world

Comments