Exhibit One: a tilt-shift application built for OS X, which costs $14.99. Purchase from the developer’s web page, install conventionally. Copy installation files manually to run on more than one computer.
Exhibit Two: one of numerous, similar applications for the iPhone, which costs $1.99. Purchased from the AppStore, installed accordingly, sync between computers via iTunes to run on more than one system.
Really, does much more need to be said? The AppStore has a better distribution model, a better pricing model, and with the iPad, arguably a better interface model for using many applications also. With a larger audience of potential users, it’s pretty clear why iPhone versions of “normal” apps can earn more money for developers than desktop counterparts.
At this point in the game, we wonder why any developer with even the slightest clue isn’t abandoning desktop application development and embracing the iPhone and iPad with complete gusto. Unless we’re talking a niche pro app that needs a desktop for some reason (multiple monitors, more computing power, et al), there’s no reason 99% of applications shouldn’t be headed to the AppStore at full speed.
Similar Posts:
- iTablet AppStore has its downsides. – By now, the rumour-wagon has settled on the idea that Apple’s purported tablet device, to be unveile…
- Will the Cloud be a threat to the iPhone? – There was almost no hesitation when we ditched our Danger Sidekick III for the iPhone. It’s not that…
- The iPad should interface with the iPhone directly. – As we checked out Apple’s latest guided tours for the iPad, it occurred to us that since the iPad is…
- There won’t be a Mac App Store. – At TUAW, Mike Schramm muses over the idea of a Mac App store, akin to the App Store most iPhone use…
- Turn-by-turn iPhone apps pathetic, so far. – AT&T, known for gouging people due to what we can assume is only pure greed, just released AT&T Navi…