does anyone agree?
does anyone agree?
does anyone agree?
I agree. It's like multi platform games on PS3 and 360. Development has to cater to the lowest common denominator so it runs smoothly on both devices. I like the idea of a universal app but sometimes dev time should be dedicated to one platform for maximum potential.
Btw, the thing I don't like about universal apps is the fact that you can't have the iPhone version installed on the iPad. For instance, the iPhone version of Pandora may be more of a less memory hog when running in the background with Backgrounder.
i agree we should not have to pay twice for an app.
if the developer modifies the app to be universal, then they should offer it to the current users as either a free upgrade or very small fee (like .99) if they are using an iPad now.
I definitely think universal apps are the way to go. I find it rather annoying that some of my expensive apps on iPhone have to be purchased again. I mean, I understand why they do it. But I don't think it's the way to go.
Best example is MLB At Bat. $15 is already a lot for an iPhone app but now I need to spend another $15? This is on top of the $100 for the MLB.tv service. No thanks.
I disagree, we definitely need both iPad apps AND Universal apps. Please remember that Universal apps take up more space. Often, not a lot. But some like 3D games take up much more space having the iPhone and iPad apps bundled into one Universal app. If they were all Universal apps, our poor iPhones would be filled up with huge Universal apps that take up much more space than they used to with no benefit for the user.
If it isn't going to make much difference to the filesize, and it makes financial sense for the developer, then go Universal by all means! But Universal is NOT the way to go for every situation and every app.
MikhailT said:With iPhoneOS 4.0 coming out by Fall, it wouldn't matter. The audio background API makes the second one moot.
MikhailT said:As for common denominator, I agree, but it only applies to games. In general, it's fine. Look at 1Password as an example.
With iPhoneOS 4.0 coming out by Fall, it wouldn't matter. The audio background API makes the second one moot.
As for common denominator, I agree, but it only applies to games. In general, it's fine. Look at 1Password as an example.
Why shouldn't we be paying twice for the app? The developers still have to work on an iPad version, it's not a one line code to switch the app into universal.
i would pay a small fee based on if there were huge improvements to the app when used w. iPad. but if its just a redressed version with same UI and same functionality, I wouldn't re-purchase at full price.
the market will demand what the right thing to do is. We shall see.
A good developer is going to come with a killer app and figure out the best way to get it his crowd, who is now more savvy than ever and more cost conservative than ever.
Offer me some more functions, a better looking app and I have no problem paying an upgrade fee. But to purchase it all over again just to get it fill my screen out a little more? No thanks.
Again, the buyers will dictate the success and failures of any given product in the market place. The smart developers already have a sense of what to charge and how to follow up with upgrades and such.
They can stand behind the principle of we worked x amount of hours to basically give you the same app, but just a little bigger or they can not sell as many and be right in their principles.
100% of nothing is still nothing. If an app developer wants me to re-purchase the same app with the same functions, just redressed-go ahead do it! I'll vote with my money and spend it elsewhere.