Apple's 100,000 apps fail to impress

It is thoroughly inaccurate and poorly-written. Assuming that Ayurdhi Dhar is a professional journalist, he or she should be thoroughly ashamed.

There are many valid issues you could fairly criticise Apple or the iPhone "hype" for. You have failed to mention a single one.

Your article is ill-informed, clearly partisan (I cannot imagine what else would have motivated to you write it in such a way) and disgraces this website.

I submitted it to Reddit:
http://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/a1ggm/easily_one_of_the_worst_mos...

Basic arithmetic suffices to see why it is unreasonable to expect more from the 100,000 iPhone apps. The iPhone can only practically hold 180 applications. Yet the average number of apps/phone is equal to the sum of the usage rates of all apps.

If you were expecting higher numbers than what the App Store has, say 5% usage for 5000 (a mere 5%) apps, then you would be expecting each iPhone to carry 250 apps, which is not reasonable. To think that these usage numbers are abnormally low is fundamentally a form of innumeracy.

"Unlike Amazon's Kindle, one application cannot run many books, and each book has come out with its own, individual application. The App Store has around 10 “War and Peace” application costin..."

The fact that there are many individual books that are being sold as individual apps has nothing to do with capabilities of the iPhone and all to do with a bussiness model... Applications Like Stanza and Amazon Kindle aplication for iPhone has a large catalog of books you can access... developers are making individual apps from public domain books because they are lokking for an easy sale.

Awww... come on ! You're so critical ! Fart App # 6,468 is truly great ! It's soooooo realistic ! What a hooooooot !

and they were always championed for that fact. It was said that people shouldn't bother with Macs because they were short on software titles. I don't know if that was true that people needed all those extra apps, but I'm sure they must have come in handy for someone. And now you're saying that because Apple has more than an ample amount of applications for the iPhone platform, it's really just a waste and not worth promoting. People do like choice.

So the extra app choices that the iPhone platform has is a weakness, yet for the Windows PC platform, all those extra applications were a strength. Someone's reasoning is definitely off-track.

Only users can decide if there are too many apps available or if there's a need for them. It's being said that apps are driving the iPhone platform more than any other mobile platform, so it's useful for increasing hardware sales and that is good in itself. Next you'll be saying that the iTunes store has too much music or too many videos. Who is one person to decide something like that? That's like saying the internet has too much information. BS. I say let the information keep coming.

You are overlooking several obvious points.

1. No one could have imagined that Apple would have 100K apps in the app store at this point after less than 500 days of operation. It is simply stunning.

2. The app store makes it possible for almost anyone to become an iPhone developer. No other mobile player had done this before. It's the first place a developer has an end-to-end development/deployment/billing solution that is top-notch AND cheap! (and yes, of course that makes it easy to submit stupid and bad apps too.)

3. The app store has 100,000 developers registered. That alone makes it a strategic investment for Apple, no matter how many crappy apps there are.

4. Apple's competitors can only stand there, dumbfounded at the meteoric success of the app store. They can't even seem to figure it out or do revenue sharing with the Telcos. Apple only shares revenue with the developers.

5. 100,000 apps are making money for a lot of people. Ebay just told CNBC that they have $500 million in NEW revenue from the app store that did not exist two years ago! That's more than WinMo made in an entire year through WinMo licensing! Check out Pangea's website. They are an unknown developer on the PC, but they are clearly making a decent living from the app store.

It's interesting that this 80% figure describing the number of useless apps is appearing in numerous tech blogs, yet I haven't seen a single reference to Pareto's 100-year-old 80/20 rule which in my experience has been quite accurate. According to this theory, the top 20% of the apps should produce 80% of the unit sales. The data available isn't sufficient to confirm this, but in any event I would guess that the 80/20 rule generally holds true not only for iPhone apps, but also Mac, Windows and Android apps.

It seems a bit preposterous to suggest that 100K apps doesn't mean anything. Regardless of the quality or value you perceive, that number signifies a substantial amount of development.

Is it safe to say that Windows is bound to fail, as some suggest the iPhone will, since there are thousands of apps for it, of which many have no quality or substance either?

One man's trash is another man's treasure. It would serve you well to not be so presumptuous about applications you have no need for.

/

@ Geekboy

monopoly: a market in which there are many buyers but only one seller.

Be careful, you are making the same mistakes the author of this article is making. The Applematters article you linked to makes a case that the iPod could be considered a monopoly. Even if that were true then there is no reason for "Apple" per se to be taken as a monopoly which is where you think you are coming from. Anyway to quote from the article you linked from:

"Microsoft is a monopoly, they engage in illegal business activities (to maintain their position)" This is the pertinent point. Microsoft did certain things such as refuse preferential rates to OEM's for their OS if they shipped Linux and integrating the browser with the OS in such a way as to make it difficult for other companies to compete and let's not forget "Windows ain't done 'til Lotus don't run...". The issue with Microsoft's approach to being in a monopolist position - and let's not forget here - they are convicted monopolists - is that the engaged in illegal business activities to maintain their position.

Apple has a lot of controls over the app store and the phone itself BUT you don't have to buy the iPhone there are plenty of other machines you can purchase. Apple does have a monopoly on the iPhone but they created it. There are plenty of other phones and smartphones you can purchase so it is certainly not a monopoly.

Now you said in your original posting:
"Apple is on the road of getting in trouble for a monopoly, just wait. It'll happen. And don't be shocked when it does."
The thing is this discussion is about the iPhone App store. Yes Apple are doing well - but they are a LONG way from being a monopoly. You can do a Google search and find articles that come up with Apple and monopoly but the only area in which they could be conceived of being a monopoly is in the area of the iPod. So I think you are clutching at straws here. Apple also keeps moving the goalposts so it is difficult for competitors to skate to where the puck is going to be rather than where it is. So we get Microsoft saying things like "the Zune has 24% of the 150gig mp3 player market" they have to narrow the range to produce any meaningful news to talk about.

Even so can you provide examples of where Apple is leveraging its "monopoly" to stop competitors? I suppose you could mention say Google Voice BUT remember the iPhone is not a monopoly and Google is a competitor.

So when you say "Apple is a monopoly" or cite links make sure that you are arguing the same facts. Even if Apple is a monopoly in mp3 players that doesn't make them a monopoly in computers or phones.

mo·nop·o·ly ~

A situation in which a single company owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. This would happen in the case that there is a barrier to entry into the industry that allows the single company to operate without competition (for example, vast economies of scale, barriers to entry, or governmental regulation). In such an industry structure, the producer will often produce a volume that is less than the amount which would maximize social welfare.

Read the link. You really want to argue for apple right? You must overlook the finer parts.. check out the link below.

http://www.applematters.com/article/has_apple_finally_become_a_monopoly_...

(P.S. Did the page break for anyone else?

I just finished an app with my 4 year old son -- ABC Tutor.
He recorded the voices and it was a great learning activity for the both of us.

Or app isn't intended to be used on all iphones or itouches.
It was written for a small audience 3,4,5 year olds.

That's the beauty of the app store. There are apps for everyone. And just because an app isn't targeted for a huge audience and doesn't get a huge number of downloads, it doesn't mean that it isn't successful.

Sure there may be a lot of apps that are trivial in a group of 100,000 but there are many gems waiting to be discovered.

And for all the developers who have poured countless hours into their creations... I feel your story is just a weak attempt at twisting the fantastic success of over 100,000 apps into something negative.

Hey geekboy,

Get your head out of your Linux machine and check out a dictionary. Look up monopoly and then tell us how Apple is going to get into this position.

I don't even have a cell phone much less an I phone. If you are "geeked out" though I can understand the squeal. The IPhone was the first of its kind and now under the guise of compentition, the critics for hire are working full time. I'm glad your working but for what or who I don't know,

Y'all are rediculous. Pull apple out of your butts and take a minute to breath.

Apple will have a very successful iPhone for a while longer, but Apple does not listen to its customers, it tells its customers what they want... it'll change, and with Android... it has already started to.

Apple is on the road of getting in trouble for a monopoly, just wait. It'll happen. And don't be shocked when it does.

You failed miserably in the attempt to compare apples and oranges (Android).

I'm a user of the iPhone and let me tell you something those idiotic surveys never do: They don't ask users in mass. The takers generally round up a few known users, ask their questions, and fashion a poorly-conceived postulation around the handful of answers. Moreover, there is known bias evident in most every survey. Just look at the political ones which fall way short of majority sentiment.

I use the apps I download most every day. So there!

Try and knock on the fact that only a mere 1-2% of the App store reaches an appreciable number of downloads/uses however go ahead and sort the apps for both the Android and Blackberry and compare them with the earnings generated by those in the Apple store . . . I'll be waiting to see those results.

In reality I'd be willing to bet the top earners from the Android or BB App stores would not place them in the top 10% of earnings in the Apple store. My point? Developers will spend more time making higher quality apps (bug free, useful, innovative, etc) where the see the ability to increase their earning potential from those apps.

As someone recently said of the iPhone:
"The competition is still catching up with the original 2G iPhone, and they are closing in on that device . . ."

"A recent study has shown that only about 20 percent of all applications ever get used by people even a few times."
So how many applications on your PC do you run all the time? The main thrust of arguments against the Mac has been "But the PC has so many Applications" now the iPhone turns the tables and the articles all say "well, apps are not that important". Please don't try and argue from different directions based on your own bias.

"Unlike Amazon's Kindle, one application cannot run many books, and each book has come out with its own, individual application. The App Store has around 10 “War and Peace” application costing not more than $.99."
It also has the Amazon Kindle app and numerous apps that plug into the Gutenberg project library - so your argument is a little moot here. If you are implying that there is channel stuffing then imagine the geek fest that would ensue if "Apple banned my War and Peace app" - the griping is bad enough already.

"On the other hand, Apple's strong contender Motorola Droid might be lagging behind in the number of applications, but the same could be more useful for customers."
Here's the thing. The droid goes on sale on Friday. How about we give it a month or so to see how it actually sells - it could turn out to be a "pre"mature release. Also, based on Droid's marketing, they may pick up the geek fans but completely miss the general public. The Jury is still out. But hey, bang the gong, you seem to think that this milestone is just a millstone.

What drivel and FUD u write.

Every other handset OEM WISHES they had the same "PROBLEM" of 100,000 Apps..... IF you can even call it a problem.

I might add too, it is a wonderful problem Apple possess.

"Unlike Amazon's Kindle, one application cannot run many books..."

Clearly you haven't been wasting your time actually using an iPhone! There is a KINDLE app that lets you read books (free or otherwise) from amazon.com! In fact there are several free apps that act like libraries for books.

Don't get me wrong--I, too, see the idiocy of having a "War and Peace" app that does nothing but show..War and Peace

Very shoddy writing. Is there no proofing process here?

The Apple Store not only includes a lot of apps for the iPhone, but also the best and most innovative ones too.

"Thus, even though Apple's marketing strategy might focus on the big numbers, recent findings have surely burst their bubble a bit, and given the Droid that extra lift."

What? How did you arrive at that conclusion? How do the #s you quote give the Droid an advantage in any way? Plus, what's this mysterious study you are referring to, something your uncle Mahdu did?

The article reeks of a shill. Thanks for the bad journalism, much appreciated.