1. boe_dye's Avatar
    This is something that I picked up in my daily news perusing.

    It's an interesting article, and in the midst of all this jailbreaking legality nonsense blaming everything on cracked apps, here is an interesting perspective on the whole thing on developing apps, and the market behind them.

    Most iPhone users never use an app after the first download - Ars Technica
    Herp a derp a derp a doooo!
    2009-02-20 07:55 PM
  2. Grassmasta's Avatar
    Hmm, I'm not really sure that the article (or the presentation) totally makes sense. So, because most people find their cellphone applications to only be worth 1 or 2 loads, free apps should be eliminated (or rather developers should charge for apps, and not give them away for free)?
    Viruses
    Intruders
    Spyware
    Trojans and
    Adware

    Windows Vista
    2009-02-21 10:30 AM
  3. confucious's Avatar
    Hmm, I'm not really sure that the article (or the presentation) totally makes sense. So, because most people find their cellphone applications to only be worth 1 or 2 loads, free apps should be eliminated (or rather developers should charge for apps, and not give them away for free)?
    I think the point of that is that lots of apps have basic versions for free and more fully featured versions that you have to pay for. So if a dev is expecting lots of people to try a free app and then upgrade, on that logic it wouldn't work.

    But, I think the logic is flawed. The free app gets publicity and gets the app known. Also, if someone isn't using the free app then they are unlikely to pay for it.

    I have lots of free apps I have downloaded and never use, as the stats suggest, I'm not alone in this, but I also have paid for apps that I have bought because I liked the free version and either wanted to support the dev because I enjoy the app or because I wanted the added features. Had there not been free versions I doubt if I would have even looked at them so i believe the model does work, at least to some extent!
    He who asks a question looks foolish for 5 minutes. He who doesn't ask a question remains foolish forever.
    2009-02-21 10:59 AM
  4. boe_dye's Avatar
    i think the point was is that alot of people see an app that looks kinda cool, see that its free and down it just because, toy with it, and never use it again, whereas if you pay for an app your more then likely going to consider how much you are actually going to use it because it is going to cost you something.

    I dont think she was saying that all apps ahould cost something, but instead was saying that free apps tend to cause more clutter because of impulse.

    And in many cases thats true, alot of time ill see an app that looks cool, see that its free, down it, play with it once or twice, and never use it again. Unlike the one i did pay for which i use daily.
    Herp a derp a derp a doooo!
    2009-02-21 03:54 PM
  5. Broomhead's Avatar
    And in many cases thats true, alot of time ill see an app that looks cool, see that its free, down it, play with it once or twice, and never use it again. Unlike the one i did pay for which i use daily.
    I do the same thing
    2009-02-21 04:02 PM
  6. Grassmasta's Avatar
    I think the logic is flawed. The free app gets publicity and gets the app known. Also, if someone isn't using the free app then they are unlikely to pay for it.

    I have lots of free apps I have downloaded and never use, as the stats suggest, I'm not alone in this, but I also have paid for apps that I have bought because I liked the free version and either wanted to support the dev because I enjoy the app or because I wanted the added features. Had there not been free versions I doubt if I would have even looked at them so i believe the model does work, at least to some extent!
    I too have plenty of free apps that I've downloaded, let sit on springboard, and then deleted (some are still there). I think this issue isn't due to whether or not they charge for the app(although this is obviously an issue for the developer if they plan on making money off their app). I feel like app use is based on how applicable the app is to everyday life. For instance, I'm a musician and I use the Guitar Toolkit all the time, I'm also a student and I use wedict all the time. However, I don't feel the need to play aurora feint everyday (AFII Lite, cause they forced us into upgrading).

    I feel like this article tried to generalize peoples app usage and then made a suggestion that is absurd. If people do use their apps more because they paid for it, than that is a purely psychological effect. Furthermore, if a developer is making apps just to make money, why should they care about how many miles people get out of the app? And if people were to start charging for apps that should be free, where is the incentive to upgrade their apps to a standard that merits a nominal fee? I think having free apps promotes healthy growth amongst underdog developers and gives them something to strive for.
    Viruses
    Intruders
    Spyware
    Trojans and
    Adware

    Windows Vista
    2009-02-21 07:56 PM
  7. aaauustiinnn's Avatar
    This is true
    2009-02-21 08:08 PM
  8. ajl917's Avatar
    This finding it completely true for me. The paid apps like BeeJive, Copter, Uno etc. I use a lot while just about every free app except for SportsTap and MobileNews I barely use...
    2009-02-22 01:26 AM
  9. JStraitiff's Avatar
    i have about 300 apps hidden that i dont even think about
    2009-02-22 03:02 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD