Should you be building universal apps for App Store?

Universal apps. They're the solution for delivering your iPhone OS application to both the iPhone and the iPad and having it run natively on each without silly make-do's like pixel doubling. It's a way to ensure that your app "fits" each platform, providing art and interfaces that match the target screen. Or, as Apple puts it, "Developers can now start planning for universal applications, allowing them to take full advantage of the technologies found on iPad, iPhone, and iPod touch with a single binary."

Right now, I've got a bug up my sleeve about the whole issue. I'm not convinced that it's the right solution for a lot of apps. Just because you *can* merge an iPhone app with an iPad app, and sell one product, you shouldn't -- unless the functionality is significantly the same for both platforms.

The thing is this: once you start programming iPad, it becomes clear that you can do things that don't make sense on the iPhone. And so your apps start to morph. They evolve to something significantly different. New features. New ways of interacting. Bigger possibilities and a much more computer-like experience, even in a mobile setting.

So at what point do you pull the plug? When do you say, I'm going to sell an iPhone version and an iPad version and they are different enough to justify the need for another purchase?

From a design and coding point of view, it's obvious that Universal Apps quickly become Frankencode. Separate projects (or, more realistically, separate targets with some shared code base and some platform-specific class files) greatly increase code readability and maintainability, even when the two projects share a great majority of features.

Consider the most Model-View-Controllerized app you can imagine. Even an app that offers glorious orthogonality between its visual design and its underlying code logic will suffer from universalization. It's just natural fallout from the conditional coding needed to deal with reality; the iPhone-based interaction modes that used to require multiple screens can now join together into simplified iPad interfaces.

I also think that developers may unnecessarily limit themselves by asking the fatal question: "How will this also work on the iPhone?" Should you be hamstringing your iPad application by forcing device iPhone limits onto its features? Do you really want to list products in App Store that state "Not all features available on the iPhone?" Sure, people who own both products will get to take advantage of those features but for a while, the vast majority of your customers will continue to be iPhone and iPod touch users. Will you be sending them the right message?

Let's not kid ourselves. From the consumer point of view, it's clear what they'll want. Consumers will not want to purchase the "same" application twice. Even if, for example, you're shipping a desktop-worthy full-featured iPad application versus a limited iPhone-style version, you're likely to alienate users if you provide the same product with (for iPad) and (for iPhone) suffixes.

Unfortunately, Apple hasn't even put the idea (let alone the realization) of a single-purchase multi-ipa solution on the table. "Multi-ipa" refers to a purchase that includes separate iPhone archive files (ipa) for iPad and for iPhone platforms. That kind of solution would offer the best of both worlds. Separate projects for the most stable coding experience with a single purchase for the best consumer experience. Being able to set price points for one or both ipas, with a "Complete my App" purchase could do a lot to let developers walk away from Universal solutions, where those universal apps don't really make as much sense as they should.

For now, don't hold your breath. Apple doesn't seem to be going in that direction.

If you end up going with two products, consider some sort of cross-promotion to lessen the financial impact. It's a little tricky to do that right now but you might be able to swing something using in-app purchases plus unique coupon ids plus non-consumable unlockables. You're showing the customer that you appreciate their purchases and loyalty but are committed to providing the best possible app experience on each platform.

For the moment, I'm leaning towards limiting Universal Apps to apps like games that provide substantially similar experiences on both platforms, although I'm certainly willing to be convinced otherwise. Add in a few iPad-specific changes where they apply, but if the two products have diverged enough that you have to put up a "Notice to iPhone users" about limited functionality, perhaps it's time to rethink your approach.

So what's your take on this? Are you planning to deliver any iPad-only applications? Or are you committed to the Universal Application route? What are the questions that developers should be asking themselves before picking one or the other? Do you think Apple might bow to pressure to provide multiple ipa delivery solutions if developers yelled loud enough? Let me know in the comments.

Thanks, Glen Aspeslagh

View Tags

Source: http://tuaw.com/tag/devsugar

Categories

Apple Developer iPhone iPod touch iPad

Universal apps. They're the solution for delivering your iPhone OS application to both the iPhone and the iPad and having it run natively...

Add a Comment

Sign in »

24 Comments

Filter by:

Nigel Tufnel

A lot of people won't like this idea, but what if you have a totally separate iPad app store? I think a universal binary is a horrible idea in this case, for both developers and for users. You could still do some cross-bundle discount types of things because purchases are linked to the same Apple ID anyway, but separating the stores would alleviate a lot of these problems. You do away with the confusing multiple version problem and another benefit would be a chance for the iPad app store to start fresh on pricing. Right now the water is already polluted because of the iPod's bottom-feeding $.99 app flood.

This would give developers--and Apple, if they run the iPad store a little differently--a chance to set iPad apps up as a more premium, more full-featured brand, and maybe get standard app prices into the $5-$10 range at least. It's too late now to do this for the iPhone store. What if instead of "price at at whatever you want", apps would have to be locked into one of several pre-set tiers? For example Free, $3 (minimum paid app price), $7, and $15? Maybe if it's over $15 you can go back to the "price at at whatever you want" model because apps in that price range aren't really the problem. A $3 minimum paid app price really makes a huge difference, but is still cheap enough to be in impulse buy territory (ie. passes the "less than a typical Starbucks drink" test). The larger range between tiers means developers have to think carefully about what kind of app they're making, who the audience is, what level of features it will have, and disincentivizes the race to the bottom mentality that has ruined the iPhone app store for developers.

March 06 2010 at 6:25 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

benjamin

Couldn't you just sell the iPhone/iPod Touch version in the store with a free in-app upgrade to the iPad version? Or is that naive and uneducated of me?

March 04 2010 at 10:05 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

David Frantz

This is a solly post in my mind as the article doesn't seem to grasp the idea that all apps have different needs or interface demands. So if the viability of universal apps depends upon the app its self this discussion is pointless.

Frankly from the developers point of view it ought to only take a days thought to determine if a universal app is viable.

As a side note I'm not doing the beta this time, so I don't have all the info I'd like to have with regards to iPad. Ultimately we need to know things like how much RAM the device has before we worry to much about extended functionality. Given that I can easily see apps that will be fine on one platform but not viable on the other.

Finally there seems to be an assumption here that iPhones resolution will remain constant forever or that the screen size its self won't change. That is a mistake in my mind as I would expect Apple to eventually change this on the iPhone. So like it or not you will have to deal with new screen sizes or resolution changes in the future even for an iPhone only app. Then there is the question of how many of these new APIs will end up on future iPhones.

It is just to early to get hung up on what one app might or might not do with respect to universal binaries. Worst it is an issue that is to app specific to discuss at length.

Dave

March 04 2010 at 6:54 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

Patrick

I wrote a little bit about this, but from the pricing angle over at the BitBQ blog:

http://bitbq.com/blog/2010/02/19/ipad-app-pricing/

It will be a challenge, but I suspect there will be iPhone and iPad versions of apps. And the iPad version will contain the iPhone one "for free".

March 04 2010 at 6:09 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

garysturn

It makes sense to optimize all future iPhone Apps for screen size on the iPad but sell them as an iPhone App (even though optimized for screen size on iPad).

But, if you are making an iPad App primarily for the iPad you should not then dumb it down so it would also work on the iPhone.

I think it makes more sense to make mostly iPhone Apps right now and optimize the screen size to scale without pixel doubling. But, some will also want to make iPad only Apps to take advantage of the real estate not available on the iPhone.

I would also like to see Apps that use both an iPhone and an iPad where the iPhone is used as part of the game on the iPad. Example: the iPad could be a game board and the iPhone could contain the players personal info, like a Clue game where you could keep your cards in your iPhone and the iPad could be the game board.

March 04 2010 at 5:27 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

JustinRez

While I agree with most of your logic, I don't think it would make sense for us to package both versions of an app for a single price. Not only are we essentially developing another (albeit the same-ish) app, that second app , as you've described, would be a completely different experience - offering a much higher level of functionality. iPad apps will probably resemble iPhone apps less and less.

Then you have a majority of your customers paying higher prices for hours of development spent on a GREAT iPad app... when they just have an iphone. That's not fair even if you think app prices should go up.

I think the in-app/coupon idea could work very well. One idea is to have the iPad version include the iPhone version, but to sell the iPhone version separately for a lower price. This dual-pack version could theoretically be purchased from the iPhone or the iPad. It would then move the other version into your account's "available downloads" list to be downloaded to the other device.

The 'universal app' could work as another option for developers who feel it would be appropriate for their apps. I have the feeling, however, that this method would be used less and less as time goes on and app development opens up for the iPad.

March 04 2010 at 4:46 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

JustinRez

March 04 2010 at 4:43 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

Mike11

Is there gonna be an extra iPad category in the App Store? If not, then "iPad only" apps will never get to be in the charts.

March 04 2010 at 4:33 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

Ken

Its going to be a nightmare on App Sore if you code different versions. How confusing is it going to get for consumers?

AwesomeApp (iPhone/3G)
AwesomeApp Lite (iPhone/3G)
AwesomeApp (3GS)
AwesomeApp Lite (3GS)
AwesomeApp iPad
AwesomeApp IPad Lite

Granted, that's an extreme example, but I think you see where I'm going. The app store is like the impulse buy shelf at the grocery store checkout line. You want everything plain and in your face. If its too confusing, I'm not going to buy anything. A little confusion on the back end is worth a lot if it mean more in sales on the front end. Stick to a universal app.

March 04 2010 at 4:22 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

2 replies to Ken's comment

Albert

Can anyone say Windows Vista? Very similar.

March 04 2010 at 4:25 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

actually I believe the device's appstore will preselect the correct version for your device.

March 09 2010 at 2:49 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

Paul Sorensen

I'm wondering if the writer of this article is knowledgeable of how the new universal binaries actually work?

I haven't downloaded the SDK yet, although I will at some point. But I would hazard a guess that a universal binary is two separate binaries (maye with some/most of the libraries shared) bundled together in a single App Bundle. Some metadata in the App Bundle probably indicates which binary is for an iPhone size device and which one is for an iPad device.

If that's the case then it's probably a very good solution.

March 04 2010 at 4:19 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply