My wish is that Apple adds paid upgrades for apps in the app store.
I'm now close to releasing a major upgrade for an iPhone app, but these upgrades aren't going to be sustainable for me without paid upgrades (I don't want the new features to be IAP features)
In the long run, this will also benefit customers because paid-upgrades will help developers add more features to the app. Users who want the new features can pay for the upgrade. Users who don't want to pay more can stick with the older version of the app (and hopefully the app store will make it possible for users to re-install older versions of the app).
I see where you're coming from, but perhaps a better way is to make it possible to offer discounts for a new app. E.g. Funky App 2 at half price, and to be able to notify users of the app at that new price.
The rationale behind this is that users can still be notified of major release versions without forcing them to upgrade or die (sometimes people continue to support older versions for a bit while the new version gets traction). For example, the new version of Coda when it came out was pretty buggy compared to the older more stable version and app store reviews showed it, but there's no way for people buying Coda 2 on the app store to upgrade to Coda 3 at an upgrade price when it comes out. Having the ability to provide a discount for not only Coda 3, but other Panic software at upgrade time could generate more sales for things like Transmit etc.
I'm not singling out Panic, just a recent example.
Let's suppose you app uses an API, or whatever other thing that you do not have control over it. You make your app and release it. Then you make a paid upgrade. After some time, that thing your app rely on gets deprecated or changes. If you push an update to only people with the a paid upgrade you screw those who have not paid, leaving them with an non working app that they might have paid for. which sucks. But if you push a free update for everyone you will screw those who paid for the upgrade. which sucks.
A paid upgrade would also signify a breaking point for further free upgrades for any user that doesn't buy the upgrade. It's not really meant to work that way.
> My wish is that Apple adds paid upgrades for apps in the app store.
As a user, I very much like the current business model. I'm actually more willing to buy an app because I know won't be socked every X months with a fee to update.
It's a very transparent & easy to understand model.
I understand you, as the app creator, wanting to raise more revenue, but I would prefer that cost be front-loaded.
I think the major mobile operating systems are rapidly approaching maturity. I don't expect any radical changes in Android, iOS or WP at this point. iOS in particular hardly looks different than what Steve demoed in 2007.
This is also why I think Android's upgrade problem may not turn out to be so important in practice. Even if the carriers utterly fail to roll out OS upgrades, the 2-3 year device churn cycle will eventually get new versions in play and ICS has fixed most of the glaring problems with the OS and is "good enough". Once Google makes major components like the browser upgradable as apps it won't be that important to rev the base OS.
I am amazed at how every single one idea in there is either stupid from the onset or the concept given is executed in an absolutely braindead way.
Just one: direct file access. The best thing Apple did for the learning curve of computing is destroy the concept of files for the casual user. The restrictions are put on the designer who has to figure out a creative way to enable task fulfillment within those restrictions. That is not a file picker (with Folders no less).
The most important enhancement is not even on the list: an iPad with several hundred apps is totally unwieldable. That should be fixed.
>> "The most important enhancement is not even on the list: an iPad with several hundred apps is totally unwieldable. That should be fixed."
This isn't a problem very many people face. The average iPhone user only has 65 apps installed (Source:Flurry) (I don't know about the iPad but I guess it would be around the same). Apple typically doesn't cater to the needs of a minority.
With folders you should be able to get a very large number of apps on your iPad's first home screen. I think it's around 400 (20 folders x 20 apps per folder).
What's the solution to mobile file system management, then? Android has a lot going for it with its plug-and-play-esque filesystems: installed Dropbox? Now every app that uses the File API can save/load files from your Dropbox. On iOS each developer has to specifically implement each file service in each app - that's not the future.
There is no way that Apple is going to add any sort of direct file access into iOS 6. This would completely undermine the work that they have done to get rid of the metaphor.
That said, there is certainly a problem with how files interact with iOS, mainly when it comes to email. Bridging the gap between the non-mobile file world and the pseudo-fileless iOS is going to be tricky.
It wouldn't be direct file access, but document access.
My vision for that is an API to expose documents in my app, and letting other apps open my editor in a fullscreen dialog, just like the email composer dialog.
The iOS today is very app-centric, and this would make it more document-centric.
Usually, if I want to share pictures or whatever, I am in the application that makes it easiest to navigate or search the content I want to send. Then I tap the share button. In fact I do a similar thing in Mac OSX. The iOS email client has only annoyed me a few times.
What they need is something like Intents on Android or maybe something like Services on Mac OS X.
This seems to be quite a comprehensive collection of features yet to be found in iOS while still remaining well thought out. Adding some of these features surely would be silly, but as iOS reaches a higher level of maturity, it'll certainly be interesting to see what Apple comes up with.
Windows 8 Contracts-like inter-app communication would seem to be the greatest feature users would love without even realizing its existence. It's a shame Apple (with OS X as well) loves to keep sandboxed apps so isolated. Launching Safari to open a URL for a specific app the user may not own is quite unfortunate.
Almost all of these will never happen, since they are against Apple's philosophy. They've tried to simplify things (which makes sense for a small device), and get rid of old metaphors (files). All most of these things do is clutter things up for the average user.
I agree, I think this will also be the reason why iOS popularity will fade over time. Either they adapt and make their OS more powerful, or people will move to alternatives that let them do more quicker. Simplification was a good selling point but features will become important again as smartphones become the central window to computing .
That would be nice. They could combine it with the iPad advanced gestures. Pinching your hand currently closes and app and does nothing on the home screen. How about making that zoom out to an exposé view?
It's pretty amazing that the things WebOS got right from the beginning - cards, synergy, and notifications - are still way better than what other phones are providing.
For iOS6 multi-tasking on the 5th generation iPhone, if the rumors of a ~170 pixel taller display are true, I would like to see a persistent dock mode when you activate the multi-tasking switcher. So basically you double-home-tap and the app resizes down ~170 pixels and the dock appears. The dock stays on the bottom of the screen as you switch between applications and use them. When you're done with your little flurry of heavy multi-tasking you double-home-tap to hide the dock again. This should also work nicely on an iPad sized display. For the ways I multi-task on iOS this would be almost a perfect system. Most of the time I'm jumping into another app for a very brief stay -- just long enough to copy something, reference something, or act on an event, then I'm returning to whatever I was doing. On the iPhone this presently requires a ridiculous number of home button taps. On the iPad using the multi-touch gestures require a lot of swiping. The Mission Control style switching this article suggests would be OK but I feel like it would still require a lot of extra taps and swipes.
The ability to arrange home screens in shapes other than grids
The Windows 8 Consumer Preview has shown me that the merits of arranging app icons in shapes are numerous. It's easier to find things.
Likelihood: Low
Sync galleries between devices via iCloud
I love the Photo Stream. Photos I take on my phone show up on my iPad and I can select the good ones to make galleries from... fantastic! Only downside is those galleries don't sync back to my phone, so when I want to show a friend on my phone the sweet gallery of photos from Friday night's party I can't.
Likelihood: Medium
Sync notifications between devices via iCloud
If I look at twitter on my phone, when I look at my tablet four hours later the same @mention notifications shouldn't be waiting for me. Ditto to every other app I use on both devices.
Likelihood: Medium-low
Gratis turn-by-turn navigation
Android does it, Nokia Windows Phones do it. iPhone should do it. Perhaps I'm just a cheapskate or perhaps navigation has been devalued so much by Google Maps' ubiquity but I don't want to pay for an app in the app store to do this. Apple bought a mapping company a while back - let's see something happen with it!
I see why someone with 250+ unread mails would also care about information density. I cringed all the way through the article, it screams information addiction throughout.
Not everything that a device can possibly display (or scream in the form of a notification) should be crammed into the OS just because it's possible and thus still "missing". I'm considering a Jailbreak to turn off Notification Center and Spotlight and other stuff I don't use, but can't be disabled.
Simplifying iOS is a high-hanging fruit. Or outdoing Google at maps. Or outdoing Dropbox at cloud services. Or outdoing amazon at books. Or taking some of the painful burden off iTunes.app.
I feel like some of these suggestions would defeat Apple's minimality. Amalgamating Windows and Android's complex features with Apple would completely damage the benefits of iOS. Stripping things like personalization, information display and unnecessary configuration options is what makes Apple what it is. If you want/require Windows and Android's tech customizability, you wouldn't own an Apple device. If Apple implemented those features, it would be like Facebook reverting to MySpace's overabundance of ugly profiles and teenboppy usernames.
Apple is or at least under Jobs, was very clear about not adding function that would consequently disrupt form or usability. Many of the features listed as suggestions for the iOS are present in other OSs. It's these 'features' that motivated me to move back to the iPhone.
Here is an example: The current rumor is Apple will introduce a larger (~170 px taller) screen. With larger screens (or taller) when you are using one hand (which most seem to want to do), as you reach your thumb to the far side of the screen your thumb muscle makes contact with the touch surface, causing inadvertent input. One-handed operation with newer devices such as the GS2 are very difficult. Also the sheer size of some of these newer "handhelds" is a bit too big for my hand (which is average to large size) requiring me to use two hands. It's little details like this that the OP and iPhone competitors seem to miss. Does the screen need to be bigger, and at what cost? If the cost is usability or adding clutter to the UI, then it will likely not make it in to the iPhone 5.
Mobile devices are good for somethings but are not meant to replace full computers.
I can't get any reliable voice dialing recognition (I'm using Voice Control but I haven't had any better luck with Siri on my wife's phone) - it would be nice if you could limit voice dialing to your favorite contacts as opposed to your entire address book.
I would love to see a Swype-like keyboard. I'm surprised that Apple didn't acquire Swype. The user experience is fluid and iOS-like. Apple could use Swype's patents to keep the keyboard as a unique selling point for iOS.
This very much. iOS users are regularly amazed after seeing the ease of typing with Swype, and are disappointed it is not possible on a regular iPhone/iPad.
What I want, and what would convince me to not jailbreak, is quick reply. The iPhone is powerful enough to handle the extra processing and it makes life a whole lot easier.
I agree. I used BiteSMS for a while when my phone was jailbroken and it works very well and is incredibly convenient. I wish Apple would include this functionality in iOS 6.
but the features pointed out in this article have not attained widespread use, and who knows - maybe there's a reason for that. Windows phone has a negligibly small market share. WebOS died. Blackberry 10 is not even out yet. And apparently the newest Android OS is also on very few phones.http://mobile.theverge.com/2012/6/2/3058522/android-4-0-now-...
The features that iOS has allowed are in widespread use once they are implemented. This is just an observation but perhaps there's a reason Apple prefers a controlled roll out of new features.
[+] [-] credo|14 years ago|reply
I'm now close to releasing a major upgrade for an iPhone app, but these upgrades aren't going to be sustainable for me without paid upgrades (I don't want the new features to be IAP features)
In the long run, this will also benefit customers because paid-upgrades will help developers add more features to the app. Users who want the new features can pay for the upgrade. Users who don't want to pay more can stick with the older version of the app (and hopefully the app store will make it possible for users to re-install older versions of the app).
[+] [-] _b8r0|14 years ago|reply
The rationale behind this is that users can still be notified of major release versions without forcing them to upgrade or die (sometimes people continue to support older versions for a bit while the new version gets traction). For example, the new version of Coda when it came out was pretty buggy compared to the older more stable version and app store reviews showed it, but there's no way for people buying Coda 2 on the app store to upgrade to Coda 3 at an upgrade price when it comes out. Having the ability to provide a discount for not only Coda 3, but other Panic software at upgrade time could generate more sales for things like Transmit etc.
I'm not singling out Panic, just a recent example.
[+] [-] duiker101|14 years ago|reply
So, what would you do?
[+] [-] jquery|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Jare|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wdr1|14 years ago|reply
As a user, I very much like the current business model. I'm actually more willing to buy an app because I know won't be socked every X months with a fee to update.
It's a very transparent & easy to understand model.
I understand you, as the app creator, wanting to raise more revenue, but I would prefer that cost be front-loaded.
[+] [-] dmix|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smashing|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mmccomb|14 years ago|reply
As a caveat to this I'd also like to see support added for hosting multiple versions of an app on the store at any given time.
[+] [-] cageface|14 years ago|reply
This is also why I think Android's upgrade problem may not turn out to be so important in practice. Even if the carriers utterly fail to roll out OS upgrades, the 2-3 year device churn cycle will eventually get new versions in play and ICS has fixed most of the glaring problems with the OS and is "good enough". Once Google makes major components like the browser upgradable as apps it won't be that important to rev the base OS.
[+] [-] hollerith|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alper|14 years ago|reply
Just one: direct file access. The best thing Apple did for the learning curve of computing is destroy the concept of files for the casual user. The restrictions are put on the designer who has to figure out a creative way to enable task fulfillment within those restrictions. That is not a file picker (with Folders no less).
The most important enhancement is not even on the list: an iPad with several hundred apps is totally unwieldable. That should be fixed.
[+] [-] k-mcgrady|14 years ago|reply
This isn't a problem very many people face. The average iPhone user only has 65 apps installed (Source:Flurry) (I don't know about the iPad but I guess it would be around the same). Apple typically doesn't cater to the needs of a minority.
With folders you should be able to get a very large number of apps on your iPad's first home screen. I think it's around 400 (20 folders x 20 apps per folder).
[+] [-] christiangenco|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drewblaisdell|14 years ago|reply
That said, there is certainly a problem with how files interact with iOS, mainly when it comes to email. Bridging the gap between the non-mobile file world and the pseudo-fileless iOS is going to be tricky.
[+] [-] geon|14 years ago|reply
My vision for that is an API to expose documents in my app, and letting other apps open my editor in a fullscreen dialog, just like the email composer dialog.
The iOS today is very app-centric, and this would make it more document-centric.
[+] [-] 2muchcoffeeman|14 years ago|reply
What they need is something like Intents on Android or maybe something like Services on Mac OS X.
[+] [-] MatthewPhillips|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] __float|14 years ago|reply
Windows 8 Contracts-like inter-app communication would seem to be the greatest feature users would love without even realizing its existence. It's a shame Apple (with OS X as well) loves to keep sandboxed apps so isolated. Launching Safari to open a URL for a specific app the user may not own is quite unfortunate.
[+] [-] elsurudo|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrich|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] twoodfin|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] k-mcgrady|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] te_chris|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] timspeaking|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MatthewPhillips|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jsz0|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] marknutter|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] twodayslate|14 years ago|reply
http://dcurt.is/2011/10/03/3-point-5-inches/
[+] [-] tomflack|14 years ago|reply
The ability to arrange home screens in shapes other than grids
The Windows 8 Consumer Preview has shown me that the merits of arranging app icons in shapes are numerous. It's easier to find things.
Likelihood: Low
Sync galleries between devices via iCloud
I love the Photo Stream. Photos I take on my phone show up on my iPad and I can select the good ones to make galleries from... fantastic! Only downside is those galleries don't sync back to my phone, so when I want to show a friend on my phone the sweet gallery of photos from Friday night's party I can't.
Likelihood: Medium
Sync notifications between devices via iCloud
If I look at twitter on my phone, when I look at my tablet four hours later the same @mention notifications shouldn't be waiting for me. Ditto to every other app I use on both devices.
Likelihood: Medium-low
Gratis turn-by-turn navigation
Android does it, Nokia Windows Phones do it. iPhone should do it. Perhaps I'm just a cheapskate or perhaps navigation has been devalued so much by Google Maps' ubiquity but I don't want to pay for an app in the app store to do this. Apple bought a mapping company a while back - let's see something happen with it!
Likelihood: ????
[+] [-] chrisbroadfoot|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gurkendoktor|14 years ago|reply
Not everything that a device can possibly display (or scream in the form of a notification) should be crammed into the OS just because it's possible and thus still "missing". I'm considering a Jailbreak to turn off Notification Center and Spotlight and other stuff I don't use, but can't be disabled.
Simplifying iOS is a high-hanging fruit. Or outdoing Google at maps. Or outdoing Dropbox at cloud services. Or outdoing amazon at books. Or taking some of the painful burden off iTunes.app.
[+] [-] dafunnie|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] headShrinker|14 years ago|reply
Here is an example: The current rumor is Apple will introduce a larger (~170 px taller) screen. With larger screens (or taller) when you are using one hand (which most seem to want to do), as you reach your thumb to the far side of the screen your thumb muscle makes contact with the touch surface, causing inadvertent input. One-handed operation with newer devices such as the GS2 are very difficult. Also the sheer size of some of these newer "handhelds" is a bit too big for my hand (which is average to large size) requiring me to use two hands. It's little details like this that the OP and iPhone competitors seem to miss. Does the screen need to be bigger, and at what cost? If the cost is usability or adding clutter to the UI, then it will likely not make it in to the iPhone 5.
Mobile devices are good for somethings but are not meant to replace full computers.
[+] [-] slantyyz|14 years ago|reply
I can't get any reliable voice dialing recognition (I'm using Voice Control but I haven't had any better luck with Siri on my wife's phone) - it would be nice if you could limit voice dialing to your favorite contacts as opposed to your entire address book.
[+] [-] X-Istence|14 years ago|reply
I've never had Siri dial the wrong number when I have asked the device to call someone...
[+] [-] user23409|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cpeterso|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fpgeek|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrich|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] twodayslate|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nextstep|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] glhaynes|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dr_|14 years ago|reply
The features that iOS has allowed are in widespread use once they are implemented. This is just an observation but perhaps there's a reason Apple prefers a controlled roll out of new features.
[+] [-] mrich|14 years ago|reply