Hacker News Reader

Comment by 746F7475 | Hacker News Reader

> I fear we've moved into an era where pop — popular, light, snackable, mass-market — apps, not indie apps

This is some pretencious bullshit if I've ever seen some. "Uhh, you like them 'pop' apps, go back to your herd you sheeple". Like what the hell even is indie app? Based on this context it's anything that isn't doing so well or is "underground" that's not what indie means, it just means "independent" as in it's few guys/gals doing it on their free time.

And what is actually preventing author from giving money to indie app developers "I would if I could", bullshit, have you actually contacted the devs and asked if they would setup a paypal for monthly donations? I doubt it. Sure there are some people who develop apps just for fun and don't want to feel obligated to update the apps (i.e. they don't want paying customers), but I'm sure many on your "indie app list" would be willing to take your money if you just offered it.

View on HN

This was my feel too.

I doubt the author would admit it, but, I think a lot of hyperbole is due to long-standing "Mac devs" and the author's circle of friends and acquaintances being unable to sustain a living from (merely) writing their own apps. Which is especially frustrating for them as the audience has grown dramatically over the past 5+ years.

Sure, the supply has grown considerably, and with that there are more 'light, snackable, mass-market apps'. But, that's what happens when the barrier to entry gets lower, and supply increases.

It is a true shame when we lose gifted 'indie' developers and some truly fantastic apps. But, no one has a right to a living.

Interestingly, and perhaps a hidden message in this article, is that there are significant parallels to draw to journalism.

So how's this different from Shareware in the 90's?

I don't think anyone then (i don't know for sure, because I know no one who actually put out shareware, personally) expected to get rich making software that spread like wildfire via floppy disk, but that's somehow changed (replace floppy disk with "social media"). I'd posit that the difference is expectations of grandeur that the startup culture (combined with pop culture) have created.

A few did end up making a living at it--at least for a while. But, right, it was a vanishingly small percentage. I probably did better than most and I still certainly wasn't about to give up my day job.

I think another difference today is that shareware, for the most part, was clearly separate and distinct from retail software. Today, the lines are much more blurred.

Kagi existed since the mid 90's at least, so it was easy to take folks money as a shareware developer.

Imagine how shareware might have taken off if easy payment existed then. The payment model was often dollar bills in the mail. Or international reply coupons, anyone remember those?

I had a deal with a local VAR (who also ran the BBS I belonged to) so that I could take credit cards in a pinch. But, yeah, I spent way too many evenings getting all the checks ready to take to the bank and stuffing floppies into mailers.

To your point though, I think the changing factors that would have made it much easier in many respects to operate a shareware business by the late 90s also led to a market dynamic where very few people were willing to pay for anything that wasn't nailed down. (This was always true to a degree of course but it was amplified once the mass market got online.)

The bar gets higher and people who aren't keeping up with the new requirements pine for the days they were able to - years ago the hard part was the technical feat of building the app.

> But, no one has a right to a living.

On the contrary, I think that should be a basic human right. But hey. Communism.

In this context though, the devs should change their strategy.

In context, no one has a right to make a living in the exact manner of their choosing, on the terms of their choosing. By principle of charity, let's assume that's what was meant.

No one has a right to make other people pretend their app is worth paying for. Just take your dole and keep the line moving, comrade.

> 'light, snackable, mass-market apps'.

I don't get this. What makes an app "snackable"? Like: "Ohh, it's so easy to use, fuck that! Cool guys configure their apps in source code and compile them themselves". I've never understood why people feel that instantly something is popular it must suck or be bad.

I could easily make a twitter app that would require you to donate $5 to a charity, run a mile and press a button 100 times everytime you tweet. This sure as hell isn't snackable or mass marketable. Am I now part of the cool kids club?

> Like what the hell even is indie app?

In the Mac world, and now iOS which most of this article refers to, the term indie developers has a more specific meaning. It refers to a single developer or small team of a few developers that is self-funded. It almost definitely implies doing it full-time [1], and not doing this during their free time only (aka. hobbyist).

It has more or less the same meaning as used in the video games community, and similar to how it's used in film making.

Similar definition with musicians as well, at least in the 90s - an indie musician was typically not signed to a record label, and published their own CDs and merchandise and sold / mailed them directly to fans. They didn't have the resources of a huge marketing department or big record label advances, but they had direct contact with individual fans & got a much higher percentage of the profit on every sale. They could make a living from a smaller fan/customer base (The 1000 True Fans theory).

Indie video games have never been defined like that, and neither have indie films. It means independent of a major publisher, that's all. The team size or level of funding has no bearing on that.

"Independent video games (commonly referred to as indie games) are video games created by individuals or small teams generally without video game publisher financial support." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indie_game

That was always my understanding. Wikipedia could be wrong too, of course.

There have been development studios not owned by major publishers with a couple hundred people (not many left today), these were never called 'indies', at most 'independent studios'. The term 'indie' was always only used for very small teams or single developers.

Er, that's not true - at least in the case of games. Lots of indie games have major publisher support, although generally not much in terms of funding. Look at PlayStation Network (Sony) and Xbox Live (Microsoft). Braid, Journey, Bastion (published by Warner Bros) as a few examples. Sony in particular is a big supporter of indies.

Secondly companies like Supercell aren't considered indie, despite being completely independent of any publisher.

Generally indies are defined as single devs or small teams, small budgets (usually little to no outside funding) and retain creative control.

Many studios are large enough that they have publishing departments to rival major publishers. These are never defined as indie.

So it's just about size of the team and the amount of money? Why should that be a consideration? I personally just care that the application works and does what I expect it to do. I don't care if it's done by big team or small team or a single chimpanzee from the local zoo.

Gotta agree with this one. I do app development for a living, and if you didn't put marketing in your budget, well, you didn't think it through.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com