Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'iPad Apps' started by flyguy206, May 1, 2010.
does anyone agree?
Can you explain your reasoning behind this theory?
I would say by far the opposite. Universal Apps are driving the iPad/App store.
If you are suggesting developers are just being lazy and doing two-for-ones and ignoring the potential of the iPad I disagree. Most Universal apps do not require additional features and I'm grateful to not have to buy them twice.
If anything is "holding" the iPad back its Apple's secrecy. The iPad dev kit was released in late Jan. The iPad hardware a month ago. Do you really expect a slew of innovative iPad apps this soon? Give it a few months. By end of summer there will be a slew of gems pouring out. Look how long it too the iPhone to evolve from the fart app of the week.
You couldn't even provide a reason for why you think so?
There are pros and cons for everything.
Majority of textual based applications do not need to have a separate iPad application. Why do you need a separate application for the same wikipedia client that all it does is download text/pics from wikipedia server and make it pretty for you?
Universal apps just doesn't work well for the games that takes up every pixel of the screen since it'll double the size of the app and that size is taken up on both hardware.
Universal apps provides the ability for the developers to release an initial iPad support to the iPhone applications while they work on fully optimized iPad applications, pleasing their users while they'll wait.
Universal applications also provide a much higher value for the users. Users might pay a bit extra knowing that the application will work on both hardware.
This can go on and on, like i say, there are pros and cons to everything, so no Universal apps aren't holding back iPad app development, just some of them.
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 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.
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 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.
Apple could've made that better. iTunes should be smarter to utilize the universal format and only put the respective code on the correct platform. Why isn't Apple doing this yet? The Universal binary format should have something like iPhone/iPad folders with a common source folder so that iTunes will put the common source on both devices with the specific folder. It shouldn't be that complicated.
Hehe. You're right.
Yeah Atomic web browser is a good example too. Best dollar spent.
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.
Some of the problems are Apple's fault. There should be the ability for developers to offer discounts for iPhone owners of the same application. At this moment, there's no capability built into the App store.
The upgrade fee still requires the application to be an universal app since it can't just let you download the iPad only version.
One of the problems is that not all iPad owners are also iPhone owners. Developers would want those iPad owners to pay the normal price of the application, instead of selling an universal app and forcing those people to pay an upgrade fee to get an iPad version turned on isn't really acceptable.
Thus the iPad versions has to be offered as well if the universal versions is more expensive than the iPad only normally would cost.
You can share your innovative ideas with App Developer Atlanta. You definitely get some help as they also provide free consultation