I wish people considered how much it costs to develop an app and then looked at the cost, keeping in mind that somebody out there needs to make a living, and apps do not sell in millions.
I am really annoyed by what Apple did to software pricing: it seems most people want stuff to be FREE or $1.99 these days. If that is your expectation, do not expect good apps, because it simply doesn't make any sense to write them.
i don't care as a consumer how much it cost to develop. If i can see benefit of the app, and that benefit is worth more than the sticker price, then the app is worth it. Most apps aren't worth their sticker price.
Does this app have less value to you than a Starbucks? Does it have less value than a bridge toll or a few hours of city street parking?
I think that to many users, this app would be more useful than those examples above. But when people think about the value that apps provide, they tend to compare the app to Facebook and other free apps made by large companies, which have incredible scale and advertising pipelines on their side.
Meanwhile my phone is full of a boatload of apps I paid for that turned out not to be useful or good that I regret buying. I think if I average over all apps I have bought since first getting a smartphone, their utility is below what I have paid for them. Most apps are not very good.
Me too, but for almost the opposite reason: Apple is disallowing GPL software in the app store, and is thereby not allowing decent collaborative and communal efforts to supply good alternatives to the glut of dinky nickle-and-dime apps.
The Apple appstore doesn't facilitate GPL licensed software, and neither does the Google Play store. They don't prevent GPL licensed software from being distributed on their stores either, the GPL software authors do. As an example of this, see VLC making it onto the Apple appstore unofficially for a time, before the VLC devs requested it be removed, as it was violating their license.
https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store...
The GPL has been in existence since long before the Apple app store, and the rules of the GPL are not meant to restrict appearances of GPLed programs in Apple’s or any similar app store; i.e. the FSF is not deliberately boycotting the Apple app store here. It is Apple, which, as part of their rules for all programs distributed in the app store, prescribes that the software may not be used in certain ways – including some ways which the GPL was explicitly made to allow end users to use the software in. Since the very point of the GPL is to allow end users to do these things, Apple is the one being restrictive here.
> These rules are exactly the kind of "further restrictions" that are prohibited by the GPL
I guess the middle ground is this line:
> That's the problem in a nutshell: Apple's Terms of Service impose restrictive limits on use and distribution for any software distributed through the App Store, AND the GPL doesn't allow that.
(emphasis mine)
Note that BSD licensed code is perfectly fine on the Appstore, because the BSD license is a permissive license.
While you’re looking at the effort and cost of developing an app, also consider that not everybody has $4 coffees (like another commenter put it) or can afford to buy many apps that are each $5 or $10 or more. Getting an iPhone is one of the best things someone could do (on privacy and security), and it does cost a lot just to get the hardware. Lower priced apps are a boon to many in countries that are not the US or another developed country.
Some sort of tiered pricing that also takes into account relative pricing power could help the developer reach more people as well as help more people. Note that many people in lower income countries may also buy older or used iPhones (with the market share of the flagships being minuscule) for what is to them a lot of money.
In the initial days of the iPhone, there were no third party apps. You only got Apple's apps plus any web bookmarks you wanted to add to your home screen. Then some people worked out how to force the phone to sideload apps against Apple's wishes.
Some time after that, Apple published an SDK and opened a store.
The way the store evolved to make apps discoverable encouraged app developers to steadily reduce their prices.
App developers can set their own prices per-country, but most accept the defaults.
This is, again, a problem of perception. People will pay $1200 for their phone, whether they can afford it or not. The perception is that they will get a beautiful physical device and that it is "worth it". To make good use of that physical device one should expect to buy apps — but they are somehow not "worth it" anymore.
I realize that not everybody cares about contact photos, but my gripe was with the "too expensive" statement. My take on this is that when buying a computer (any computer: laptop, desktop, tablet, phone), you should expect to spend around 50% of its price on apps in the long run, and even more in niche business settings. That is the real price of your purchase. If that is too expensive, consider getting a less expensive device.
I get that it’s your personal take, but it just doesn’t work that way in developing countries. I’m not sure most people would consider spending 50% of the hardware cost on software in developed countries either, if the apps are for personal use.
There are variations in price expectations depending on the type of product. Hardware is something people are willing to pay more for. Video content is slightly similar in the very long run (if using streaming services). Software seems to be generally lower on the rung, regardless of the platform.