Google is the only thing saving the software business.

A while ago I posted about how Apple does nothing to protect developers from people cloning their application’s name, functionality, and often even their intellectual property. This has been a widespread topic since Apps became popular, and the overall response has been “tough luck” as the distributors (Apple, Google) mostly care about the platform boost in having a strong App Store and their own revenues from it … not ‘developer-to-developer’ relations.

Something interesting to consider is that, in the past, Google has always factored the blogosphere and external links as a way of building reputation for websites and helping established developers remain protected against shameless competition, much of which stems from third-world countries. These developers produce cheap copies of another developer’s work, hoping to gain even a small sliver of the market.

Unfortunately, the App Stores place everyone on the same level when selling, throwing any sort of online reputation out the window. It’s a question of application ratings, easily manipulated keywords, and overall download count (driven both externally from web-based links and internally from ‘in store’ discoveries) … to maintain your sales and rankings. Often these rankings themselves are easily manipulated, or suffer a spike or sudden downturn. Due to history not being a factor, it can be seriously difficult to recover from a downturn, even for an established developer.

The great thing about placing everyone on the same level is that it helps smaller developers get a head start, but it also significantly reduces the barriers to entry for scam artists trying to make a quick buck. There are companies literally in business of duplicating Apps, and not innovating. Eventually, the parasites will run out of hosts.

It’s fascinating that these App Stores are powered by the internet, but in some ways seem to completely neglect it and instead expect to survive within their own ecosystem. However, these systems need Google’s rankings as a basis or they will become an absolute, unregulated disaster. With more and more people discovering Apps within the stores themselves, less and less are discovering them via Google and the blogosphere. Ironically, the one thing separating many major Apps from their smaller competitors is a web presence, and the downloads or reputation generated by it. This may be acceptable now, but in the future as the web becomes less of a distribution focus for applications it may become a major issue in separating brands.

Furthermore, being that the systems for ranking applications and driving sales are easily manipulated and gamed, many developers choose to release duplicate Apps with the same functionality to target different keyword combinations and categories. We’ve suffered from this with my business, and so have may others. This further dilutes the system under which everyone receives the same marketing presence, and makes things tremendously more complicated for everyone to manage … including customers who are simply trying to download through the only platform from which they are able.

It is almost disgraceful the state that the App Stores are in based on how many duplicate Apps have turned up both from other developers and even the original developers themselves trying to protect their turf. Honest sellers are almost being penalized for attempting to be ethical and play by the rules, and there’s nothing that they can do considering that it is the only App Store. — Antitrust, anyone?

7 notes

Mobile17 v3.0 released

So, I’ve spent the past year working on this third, and final version of Mobile17

Make your own ringtones on Mobile17!

It’s pretty cool. Really simplifies everything and streamlines the “make your own ringtones” process. Very easy to use, fun, and with less clutter! Check it out, and be sure to tell your friends or post your ringtones to your Facebook wall. :)

1 note

RelayRides: Why they won’t make it.

A few weeks ago I was at a seminar for new web startups, and one in particular caught my eye: RelayRides. It’s a person-to-person car sharing service, much like Zipcar… without big-brother managing the vehicles themselves.

Basically, take Zipcar, and subtract the provided vehicles. You drive your friend’s (or a complete stranger’s) car for an hourly rate.

Much like Zipcar, fuel and insurance are included at no-charge. Also, rates start at just $6/hour. The biggest difference is that if you own a vehicle, you can rent it to others by having a transponder installed in your car. They’ll provide a $1-million insurance policy and up to $4,500-8,000 per-year in your pocket. (apparently)

However… I don’t think this idea is going to go anywhere.

Aside from the fact that if one could afford to buy a car (of any cost), they probably wouldn’t be purchasing a car expensive enough that they would need to recoup some of that cost through a service like RelayRides in order to afford it. And, I don’t know if I would want a complete stranger driving my car (or even some of my friends, for that matter) considering the amount of comprehensive damage that could occur and go unnoticed. Not to mention maintenance requirements.

That aside, the business model is flawed in a number of ways as well:

  1. Lack of “initial push” … WHERE are the cars they’re offering right now? Unlike Zipcar, which through investments was able to place cars all over the place and lure in customers who didn’t particularly desire owning their own car or who travelled a lot, RelayRides relies on those same customers to provide reliable vehicles for their other customers. This is fatally flawed and unless the company is planning on growing extremely slowly, they will have to turn a lot of customers away… customers they need.
  2. Lack of on-car advertising … One benefit to using someone else’s car through RelayRides is that it’s not blasted with Zipcar stickers everywhere and marketed as a car that can be shared. However, this is also an obvious downfall for the company. The sheer amount of marketing dollars required to reach the same audience that Zipcar has actively reached with a few pennies worth of vinyl-lettering (on each vehicle) is staggering. For one, I will admit that I probably wouldn’t have learned about or considered Zipcar in the first place if I hadn’t seen their distinct vehicles driving around Boston from time to time… and become curious!

So, aside from the number of liabilities for customers (both driving and renting), there are number of serious roadblocks for a company like this to grow to the point at which it’s both interesting and sustainable. I just don’t think it will ever get there.

0 notes