Edible Apple has an interesting analysis up about this Newsweek article claiming that App Store developers aren't getting rich. Newsweek basically claims that all those success stories we've heard about App Store developers have a darker side: if they aren't already buried in costs from developing that hit app, they're desperately scrambling to rise above the noise and get another one's sales up on the App Store. [For a similar perspective to Newsweek's, check out this post from Ged Maheux at the Iconfactory.]

Edible Apple replies that that's true, but a closer inspection of the numbers shows that these devs are actually making plenty of money -- while their costs are going higher than they expected (one example has a developer paying over $100,000 to make $200,000) there is still money to be made. What developers are actually discovering, says Edible Apple, is that the App Store isn't a gold rush -- it's a business.

That's an interesting point. In the beginning, the App Store was a gold rush -- you could hack together a fart app and come up with a few month's worth of beer money over night. But with almost 100,000 apps, it's a different ballgame. You either need to come up with an original idea that people are interested in, or polish an existing idea until it shines so bright it's unavoidable. And as Edible Apple says, that's actually a good thing. There is money to be made in the App Store these days -- multiple developers have proven that already. It'll take work and luck to do it, but isn't that the case with any successful business?

Top20 iPhone Games Analysis 09/2009

View more presentations from HandyGames Germany.

The folks over at German developer HandyGames originally put together this slideshow presentation for their own internal use, but they determined that it actually could be useful for almost anyone following iPhone releases and their development, so they released it out into the world. And they were right -- there's some good info in here. Basically, they did a survey of the top 20 apps, both paid and free in five different regions of the world on the App Store, and then compared different qualities of all of those apps to see what the most successful apps had in common.

What did they find? Things like the fact that the majority of top 20 apps do not use all caps for the title and use an original IP for their releases. The differences are interesting as well: most paid apps are made by recognizable developers, while most free apps are made by smaller publishers. Free apps receive many, many more reviews than paid apps, though (if I'm reading the presentation right) they tend to be rated lower. Chillingo is the App Store's most prolific top developer, while Digital Chocolate releases games most often, with a full 1.5 releases per week since (I suppose) they started publishing games.

Very interesting stuff, though the numbers still require a little backgound knowledge to deciper (Backflip Studios appears in a few rankings, even though they've only just started releasing games last month -- popular games, but only a few games nonetheless). Cool to get an overall snapshot of the kinds of games that are doing well on the App Store so far.

I was chatting with my TUAW colleagues this morning about Mac versus iPhone programming. And as per usual with these conversations, we veered in the direction of unfettered speculation. It's an occupational hazard.

As someone who regularly develops on both platforms, I declared that the iPhone represents the future of Mac programming. The iPhone, I posited stated, offers a great new platform without the need to be fully backwards compatible like the Mac. Our own Victor Agreda challenged me to back up that position. After a bit of time and thought, I decided to do so in this post.

My key point is this: Apple's engineers have learned a lot of important design lessons during the history of OS X. When the iPhone debuted, it gave those engineers the chance to rebuild an OS and an API from the ground up. Those engineers could craft a platform and its libraries that built on the Mac's successes without dragging along its less fortunate design decisions. Yes, there were some lemon frameworks that initially made the grade, but over time, Apple has reduced their number.

Even now, Apple continues its iPhone design process, adding new frameworks and APIs at a prodigious rate. The iPhone OS remains a work in progress, developing in ways and directions that the initial release two years ago could not have anticipated. And Apple does this, knowing fully that the closed platform allows them a great deal of design freedom that would not have been possible on the open Macintosh.

In contrast, consider in how many ways the Mac's successful history drags the platform down. A commitment to existing APIs and historical design practices show up in nearly every Mac development project. The simple elegance of the iPhone's built-from-the-start-as-Objective-C 2.0-based API is largely missing from Cocoa libraries.

Whether you're working with buttons, menus or simple text views, the iPhone development approach simply works better: beautiful 2.0-style properties, consistent API design, better-thought-out object inheritance trees, and so forth. With the iPhone, you see a great new platform evolving without the need to be fully backwards compatible

Snow Leopard, with its minimal API changes has bought the Macintosh a few years of stability. But I think it's time for Apple to rethink the platform as a whole, re-imagining its API through the lens of current iPhone OS development. While Snow Leopard offers Apple the room to stay still for now, I can see Apple moving forward in a separate engineering effort to Cocoa Touch Mac, a hypothetical cross-platform OS that supports general development on iPhone and future Mac devices like my imaginary snow-princess-rainbow-pony-iTablet.

The ghost of NeXT-past, as TUAW-colleague Joachim Bean puts it, still haunts us. It's time to exorcise the unhelpful bits of that pervasive spirit and usher in the new age of the iPhone and its API design examples. Mac OS X is, and has been, a superb development platform. What I'm suggesting is that iPhone OS might just be a better one.

$80 on apps? I didn't think it was that much, but after going over estimates in my head, that sounds about right, actually. A survey of 1200 App Store customers estimates that we've spent about $80 on applications so far, with an average of about 65 applications per customer. There's a little weirdness in those figures though: they also say that 65% of the apps downloaded were free, and that the average app price was $1.56. There's some extra information hidden in there: if 65% of the apps are $0, and the average price is still up above $1, that means people are spending way more than $1 on the apps that they do buy. More research seems needed there.

There's another surprising figure as well: of all the 1200 customers surveyed, altogether they only had about 15,000 unique apps on their iPhones. When you compare that to the latest figures of about 65,000 apps, that means you've got about 50,000 apps (definitely the majority) that are completely untouched by these customers. Of course, 1200 is a tiny sample when you're talking about the millions of iPhones sold overall, but if that is in fact a representative sample, that means that there are many, many more apps than people have actually downloaded and tried in iTunes.

Not hard to believe -- with iPhone developer numbers in the hundreds of thousands, tons of trashware on the store, and the relative ease it takes to crank out an app, it's no surprise that you've got way more apps than people interested in trying them. But then again, isn't that the way we want it?

Jeremy Laws at Cabana Mobile has an interesting little analysis up about mobile gaming that claims it may not be as big as it's cracked up to be. Laws says there's no way the mobile gaming market can hold up $5.4 billion, as was reported earlier this year by Juniper Research. Laws looks at the top 10 companies releasing mobile games (at retail -- that will become important in a minute), and claims that even if those companies make up 70% of total mobile games, the total amount of mobile game sales only comes up near $1.7 billion, far short of the Juniper number.

So where's the discrepancy? It's almost certain to lie in the App Store, where Juniper says growth more than made up for the dropoff of sales in other areas, like Java-based games. Laws does list companies like EA Mobile and Gameloft, whose games are selling on the App Store, but almost all of Laws' companies are old-school mobile developers, who created games for mobile phones before the App Store was ever open for business. Plus, his "retail" mention might mean the App Store isn't included in his calculations at all -- can you call the App Store "retail"? In fact, if any mobile games marketplace is going to make up over $3 billion in the mobile games market, it's got to be the App Store, right?

So this means a couple of different things: one, the App Store very well could be remaking the face of mobile gaming, to the point where old-school numbers are just plain insufficient to compare to modern App Store sales. Second, if there is a bubble, it'll likely be in the App Store: another recent report says that if you spend more than $40k on a 99 cent game, you're losing money. Laws may be underestimating the long tail of the App Store -- certainly no single developer has pulled in billions, but there are a lot of developers out there. Still, at the same time, $5.4 billion does seem high. And if games companies are convinced there's gold in the App Store hills, that's where the bubble will eventually burst.

In a research note to clients, Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster suggested that Apple is developing a 7-to-10-inch tablet priced at $500 to $700, perhaps ready for the public in 2010.

According to AppleInsider, Munster's contacts in the supply chain haven't seen a prototype of the device, but are in discussions with Apple to supply components for something at that size and price point.

Munster believes that Apple could adjust the iPhone SDK to allow for multiple display resolutions. Apps like Safari and Mail, he says, would benefit from the additional screen real estate. He also mentions that with the larger screen, more than one traditional iPhone app could be run at once.

As for timing, Munster suggests that the device could be ready next year, and possibly be subsidized by a wireless carrier.

As with most analysis of this kind, this is two parts hearsay, one part "interpretation of conference call statements," and seven parts wishful thinking. In providing technical details about a product that may not exist, Munster is writing checks that Apple might not be able to cash.

Is this something you'd buy? Is it even going to happen? Sound off in comments.

Apple reported amazing earnings in its conference call last week, but SwitchtoaMac.com says not so fast -- while it's true that there was a lot of sun shining in Apple's report, there is one small shadow that they obviously didn't mention: their shipments of new Macs have started to drop off for the first time in 5.5 years. And they're the lowest they've been in a year and a half.

A problem? Not a terrible one, but as you can see from the chart over there, there is a definite downturn in new Mac shipments. That might actually be good news for Apple, though -- with the economy doing a nice downturn lately, less inventory might shore up sales a bit, and keep their budgets in line with estimations. Of course it would also mean fewer Mac sales (and despite the recent popularity of the iPhone and the iPod, Macs still make up the majority of Apple's revenue), but if customers aren't there, that's better than having warehouses full of computers paid for but not actually sold.

It's definitely not a sign that the company is going down in flames (in fact, all evidence says exactly the opposite), but it may be a sign that Apple's amazing growth is slowing down a bit.

Thanks, Larry T!

There's been some growling and teeth-baring between Apple and Palm lately, but Engadget wanted to know: does Apple really have a case against Palm for their patented technology? They put their (and our) legal correspondent, Nilay Patel, on the case, and in this long but very interesting analysis piece, he answers: probably.

But things, as usual, aren't that simple. Apple's patents don't just cover "multitouch" -- they cover very specific behaviors using the multitouch feature, and if Palm's Pre phone doesn't use those behaviors, there's no infringement. Of course, Patel is only going off of video of the Pre -- they don't have it in hand yet -- so things could change before the unit is released, but they do find significant evidence that Palm may have stepped on some lines it shouldn't have.

Then again, as Patel and patent attorney Mathew Gavronski discovered, Palm's got some tricks of their own -- they've got a whole slew of easily findable patents that the iPhone appears to infringe upon, including using an ambient light sensor to define brightness, looking up contacts just by using initials, and a number of other functions. Then again again, Apple's got pending patents in the fire that it can revise in case they think Palm is really trying to hone in on their business.

So bottom line, this could be really messy or it could be really simple, and Engadget concludes that the ball is in Apple's court -- if there's going to be a war, they say, the first shot will be from them. Personally, I think it's all corporate posturing -- as Patel points out, Palm has much less to lose, not having sold a single unit yet, and Apple is just making sure they know what's what. But there is a lot of money here, and if one side decides it'll cost less to go after the other, the fur could fly.

Joel Comm, publisher of the highly-useful app iFart Mobile, has published some data about how sales related to popularity in the App Store.

While I have only a high-school understanding of statistics, it would appear from Comm's data that as sales rise in a linear fashion, App Store ranking increases (or I should say decreases, because lower numbers are better) logarithmically.

Comm admits that his data isn't carefully tabulated: he hand-counted the sales, as they're broken down by country, and says he didn't include countries "where one or two units were sold." Comm's data was collected between December 12th and 17th.

On Sunday's talkcast, the Iconfactory's Craig Hockenberry and Gedeon Maheux lamented the lack of analysis tools for sales, and said they'd appreciate more transparency about how rankings are mathematically determined.

Comm anticipates more data will be forthcoming from other developers. With more data, a more detailed statistical analysis can be performed, and preferably from someone other than a TUAW blogger who majored in art.

Stick with us here: a new report by Forrester Research claims that of all the music purchased in the US, digital purchases have jumped to 18% of the total, and they expect it to go up to 41% of total sales over the next five years. That means that about 20% of all the music sold in the US is bought digitally. And distorted-loop.com is doing a little reasoning from those numbers -- since Apple's iTunes accounts for 70% of US digital sales, DL has decided that Apple accounts for 12.6% of all music sold in the US.

Can't really argue with that reasoning, and given that we know iPod sales are up (and increased sales of the iPod touch means more people can buy from iTunes straight to their iPods, not to mention that one of the biggest days for iTunes sales is Christmas, thanks to all the new iPods under the tree), we can probably look for that number to head even further north next year.

Gene Munster is skeptical that Apple's guidance of lower margins for the rest of the year in its Q3 conference call back in July, and expects the company to continue to outperform expectations.

The Piper Jaffray analyst said that lower prices for NAND flash memory will offset any reductions in price for new iPods introduced last month.

Munster speculates that even with an introduction of a sub-$1,000 MacBook before the end of the year, Apple's margins will remain healthy. Yes, it will have an impact, but not to the degree that Apple execs hinted in their phone call: Munster thinks margins would only fall to around 30 percent.

In fact, Munster says "investors would see the lack of redesigned, lower-priced Macs as a more significant negative than they would a 30 percent GM guide in the December quarter." (Emphasis mine.)

He reiterated his "buy" rating. Munster's price target for AAPL is still higher than many others (at least recently), at $250 per share.

[Via Ars and AppleInsider.]

Peter Cohen over at Macworld continues his sideline analysis of Apple's gaming chances with a post about how the brand new faster iMacs are indeed faster, but still not fast enough for gamers. And to a certain extent, he's right -- gaming on the Mac is like that old beat-up, "someday I'll fix it up" convertible your father's had in the garage covered with a tarp since you were a kid. Getting it out and putting a new engine in it might help it run better, but it's still not going to turn it into a car that anyone wants to drive around.

But (and we talked about this extensively on the Talkcast a few weeks ago with Brian Akaka from Freeverse) it's a step. A faster video card, even if it isn't blazing, will run games better than before, and it'll do a little to bring not only gaming customers but developers back to the Mac. Cohen is right -- that old convertible needs an actual mechanic to take a look at it, and it needs the seats to be reupholstered, and sooner or later it's going to need a new can of paint (not that, like your Dad's actual convertible, these things aren't ever going to happen -- we continue to hear rumblings that Apple is aiming for gamers).

But something is something -- the very fact that Apple is offering faster video cards is a sign that they're interested. And, other than simple profiles of games on their website and cameos by game execs at keynotes, that's more than we've had in a while.

Peter Cohen's got a good commentary up at Macworld about Apple's should-be next target for gaming, the Macbook. Finally, as of the iPhone SDK announcement, we've seen some serious movement on the gaming front from Apple -- they brought EA in and commissioned their own programmers to punch out some game software to show off the iPhone SDK implementation (and as I've said before, including on the talkcast a few weeks ago, we're only seeing the beginning of what's possible with gaming on the iPhone). So maybe they're finally seeing the light on gaming.

But as is, the Macbook isn't winning any awards as a gaming machine. As Cohen says, yes, the integrated graphics card puts the consumer Mac laptop hopelessly behind the times, but the problem isn't just upgrading the hardware -- the software itself needs to be optimized and redesigned. Apple has always been at the forefront of development, and Leopard especially, with Core Image functionality, looks great in the OS and in applications.

But when even mainstream sports titles, the kind that are on all platforms from day one, can't even play on your hardware, it's time to go back to square one. As Cohen says, we're not asking for much -- but games are a core part of the personal computing experience, and Apple shouldn't sideline that demographic any more than the others they serve.

We've seen a lot of commentary on the Macweb and beyond since the Macworld keynote revealed the MacBook Air, and several themes have started to become apparent. One of the ideas most often advanced is that Apple simply made too many sacrifices in power to meet the demands of the gorgeous form factor, a complaint against Apple that has long-standing precedent back to the G4 Cube and beyond. Through much of this, however, I get the sense that there's a kind of mistaken, or at least misplaced, assumption at work.

Frankly, we've been spoiled by Apple's portable designs. After essentially inventing the modern notebook computer form factor Apple has been churning out better and better portable machines, to the point that Mac portables now significantly outsell the desktops, and for many people their only computer is a PowerBook or MacBook (Pro). We've been led to expect a Mac portable to be the only computer you need (so much so that now the phrase "desktop replacement" almost seems quaint). It's in that light, I think, that the Air seems to fail. Whatever else you might say about the machine, it is not really adequate as your one and only Mac if you're anything like the majority of tech-savvy TUAW readers.

So what is the Air? I think the Air is, and is really intended to be, a secondary computer. It's serious enough to get real work done on while you're away from home or office, but it's not a primary production machine in my view. Looked at in this light, however, the sacrifices Apple has made don't seem so bad. If you've ever lugged a 5-6 lbs laptop (plus accessories!) on your back all day, you know exactly what I mean.

What's the upshot? Well, if you're only going to have one Mac, it shouldn't be the Air. By the same token, it seems to me too highly priced right now to be a huge success. Its real market is going to be executives and others who have enough disposable income (or expense accounts) to have an Air plus another Mac. Thus, I think Apple should embrace this "second Mac" status more explicitly by introducing some kind of syncing system similar to the iPhone/iPod. It would be great if there were a kind of MacBook Air dock you could set it in and have it automatically sync, say, your Documents folder as well as parts of your iTunes and iPhoto libraries, etc. well beyond what third party software can offer in ease of use. Even more radical would be a kind of workspace syncing, so that you could grab your Air and it would automatically have basically the same workspace you were using on your main Mac, with applications, documents, etc.

Of course, only the future will tell if the Air is too big of a compromise (like the Cube) or whether it will meet with some success. I'm sure Apple will sell plenty of Airs, but I seriously doubt it will have the success of the regular MacBook lines. Nonetheless, it shows that once again Apple is out in front and (in some respects) listening to its customers (who have been clamoring for a small Mac portable since the 12" PowerBook died). It may turn out, like in the case of the original iPod, that Apple is really creating a new market here that we just don't quite understand yet. But if that's so, much like the original iPod, I think the Air will need to drop in price and expand in functionality to really be a mainstream hit. What do you think?

Christopher Breen knows a thing or two about iPods, iTunes and the Apple digital media ecosystem. We asked him about the limits of the newly-enabled Apple TV purchases, HD content and the fragile-yet-sexy Macbook Air.

Also available on: YouTube, Metacafe, DailyMotion, Blip.tv and Crackle