Hey, look at the top ten apps on both app stores, then come back here and try not to be cynical about anyone's chanced of succeeding there. I've seen numbers on sales in the app stores. If yer not in the top 25, you might as well not even be in the app store, from a meaningful revenue perspective. There are very few exceptions, as far as I know. One possible one would be any app that's $20. Those probably make money, despite low sales numbers.
It's entirely possible to succeed using only honest, community focused methods. But yer competing with a huge pack of other guys who don't use those methods, and have a significant advantage because of it. This isn't hugs and puppies. This is business.
I have for years. Believe me, the idea that the app store is a positive feedback loop and you have to clear the inital hurdle to get anywhere is not news to me.
But the advice you're giving here is roughly equivalent to telling a young cyclist in their first pro race, "hey, listen buddy. If you want to succeed, you've got to dope. Everybody's doing it. There's no other way."
And yet, if he wanted to ride in the Tour De France, I think we all know he'd lose unless he did a blood transfusion every single night....
Actually, wait. No I take that back, I do not agree. A starting cyclist will compete in local, small time races. There's only one App Store, and it's Pro's take all. These guys may be just beginning, but they're already swimming with sharks.
And if that's not enough mixed metaphors, I'll edit again!
Except, that analogy is true: purportedly, doping is really pervasive in pro-cycling and is basically necessitated to be anywhere near competitive. The same is true of the app store.
It's not optimal, but it's the status quo that tens of thousands of developers face: you can't win if you don't employ dubious means.
By the way, pro cycling had pretty much managed to kick its doping habit. You've seen all of the scandals over the past few years because they got more serious about cracking down on it, and once a few of the top pros were caught, they pointed the finger at the others. I think that most people believe that the last few Tours have been clean.
Hey I'm interested in this. How are they not clean now? Times are down by about 6% from Armstrong's heyday. I do want to understand your thinking as there may be something I' missing. I'm sure there are dopers, but AFAIK the leading teams are largely much much better now (look at Team SKY)
Where did you get that 6% and was that reliable source? And even if that number is somehow "correct" (each Tour is different and it is not possible to just numerically compare them) it does not mean the cycling is now clean, it does not even mean it's cleaner... there are too many factors that can influence this.
My opinion is this: cycling may be a bit cleaner in a sense that maybe doping is not as widespread as it used to be and maybe the effect of doping is more limited because they need to be more careful. But I don't believe cycling is clean now. There are new drugs that are undetectable and mentality has not changed. I believe this is more realistic: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/italian-judge-says-doping-is...
And about SKY team - I have no proof and it's nothing more than just my guess but I don't believe they are clean either. Remember last TdF? They totally ruled, they controlled the whole race. My cycling intuition tells me this is not natural. They certainly compete against some (I would say many) riders who are not clean (some of them even got caught, like Frank Schleck) and they were not even competing on the same level - they were superior. I don't believe it is possible without doping. The fact that they claim otherwise on every occasion means nothing to me - I have seen this too many times.
My guess - and I realize it's nothing more than guess - is that if in 2030 they use their new methods to test today's samples they will find out that there is some substance that is undetectable today.
I would love to be proven wrong on this - I love cycling.
I was wrong... it's 10% down according the source I was remembering: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18921784 and the 6 was from the power ratio of the top riders now down to around 6W/Kg.
Read more of the in-depth articles about Sky. Their training methods are hugely different, and came from the GB track cycling programme which has taken the world championships and Olympics by storm over the past decade. They're open about what it is, and unlike with others, it's only the performance which makes anyone wonder. Look at the figures, and remember, they're still 10% slower than Armstrong!
What they are using is demonstrable physiological science and feedback: a manifestation of the benefits of the Quantified Self approach!
That article is interesting - it made me reconsider my opinion a bit. I certainly can be wrong about SKY team. I would have respect for them even if they were not clean because I have enough experience with cycling to be able to imagine how hard you have to work to get through any grand tour even if you are not clean. But if they are... good for them.
Regarding the top 25 meaningful revenue... this all depends on your team size, does it not? If you are solo or a team of 2-3, you need a lot less revenue than a big company.
We're almost done with our slot machine game for iOS (lame, I know), but we only have 2 people, and we definitely don't need to be in the top 25 to make some real money (that can fund new, "real game" projects).
Do some reading to figure out what kinds of returns you can expect. I've seen 1 and 2 person teams basically able to replicate a medium income job. That's great if you can make it sustainable, but I don't think anyone's getting rich outside of the glamorous world of a few big indie titles.
It's entirely possible to succeed using only honest, community focused methods. But yer competing with a huge pack of other guys who don't use those methods, and have a significant advantage because of it. This isn't hugs and puppies. This is business.