I wouldn't go as far as saying that Google and Apple are actively deceiving developers. However, they do have a strong incentive to keep things the way they are, and to keep the end user ignorant of how the app economy functions.
You might be surprised to know that many customers on the App Store, and even some members of the press, seem to think that apps being featured by Apple have been bought by the company. I would get emails like: "how have things changed for you since Apple bought your app?"
If people knew how bad the app economy has become, there'd be far fewer app developers than there actually are, and the device makers would have a serious PR problem on their hands.
In the end though, I do believe that the short-term thinking I alluded to in my post will soon come home to roost. I do hope that Apple and Google course-correct before we end up in a situation where indie apps are a distant memory. It's in their long-term interest to keep the App Store diverse and the app economy healthy.
I wouldn't be surprised if it was more possible to make money on the Windows side - not so much with Windows Phone as with Windows Universal apps on both the Desktop and Mobile Windows Store.
The ending of "Project Astoria" that could have let some Android apps run on Windows 10 Mobile has undoubtedly hurt Windows Phone because of the dearth of good apps, but that same lack means that a quality application could still be a smallish fish in a small pond rather than a minnow in a large lake - even with the disparity in adoption 1% of the smartphone market is a significant number of devices. If an app is also something that's viable as a desktop or tablet app, that may provide enough of a larger market over time to keep some folks in business.
You got it. To profitably support commercial power users I would have had to change the business model to a pay-as-you-go subscription model. I considered doing this in a way that wouldn't shut out my casual users (for whom I created the app in the first place, and who are still the majority), but I had serious doubts about the willingness of taxi and limo drivers to pay for Just Landed on an ongoing basis.
The proliferation of half-decent free flight trackers (albeit without the unique airport pickup focus), the other systemic problems mentioned in my post, and the increasingly common cannibalization of utility apps by Apple's iOS itself, led me to the conclusion that such an endeavor was likely doomed to fail.
Just because you can find passionate users doesn't mean you've found a good business, and that was the case here.
Have you tried it? What if instead of "we're shutting down", you'll say "from now on the service will cost 5 bucks a month" (or we'll close)" and see what happens?
Creator of Just Landed here. Actually, I have been approached by a number of companies over the years about selling Just Landed, including some household names. The trouble is, almost none of them wanted the app – they just wanted me as an employee. These weren't companies I could get super excited about working for - especially since I love being an entrepreneur and working for myself. Of the few who did want the app or the tech, their quality bar/taste wasn't a good fit, and I worried about how they would treat my users. It was never about the money. Time is my most valuable scarce resource.
Hmmm. If it's about users, then why shutter the service they depend on? I am sure you have throught about this a lot and are probably tired of investing more time and energy in this project, but if you have hundreds of thousands of users, you have a huge opportunity on your hands.
How about:
1) start building your own set of data to complement the bought data. Every time there is an inaccuracy, approach the airline company and start using their data directly. Later on, you can even become one of the companies who provide data to others. When there is a problem ("the data companies are not doing their job") there is an opportunity.
2) change the pricing model to charge big users more. They should be your bread and butter, because they get paid to use your app. You are just a small additional cost to them. You can even lower the initial price tag and charge more for enterprise usage... Since you are better than others (see 1.) the enterprise users will be happy to pay more.
3) failing that, sell to an entrepreneur who will continue. I am sure there are many interested persons and your users would be better served if someone picked up where you left off. Hell, I am interested... :)
Ever think about contractualizing the things that concerned you (like user-treatment) and getting a conditional employment contract, which also featured a limited term?
I hear you on the time point. Thing is, it's hard to get to that place where you have an offer on the table. Starting over would have a time cost, so over the long term, you might've been able to buy yourself more time with the time you'd already invested.
Of course, that also depends on the amount of the offer.
Thanks for the clarification. I use PageSpeed via a couple of App Engine apps that have it enabled directly from App Engine's admin dashboard. I never had to change any DNS settings to get it to work. Does this shutdown also mean that PageSpeed will no longer be offered for App Engine apps? Do I need to take any action to avoid a service interruption for my users?
If you are using PageSpeed integration on Google App
Engine, it will continue to function until 1st
December 2015, after which PageSpeed optimizations
will no-longer be applied to your app. No action is
required on the part of App Engine users; after this
date apps will continue to operate, except without
the benefit of the PageSpeed optimizations.
App Engine users only need to take action if they have something on their site that depends on PageSpeed, which is very uncommon.
Developer of @justlanded here :) Thanks for appreciating our landing page – @partlysean did a great job on it. We also recently released Patchmania which has a neat landing page you might like: http://getpatchmania.com
Honestly, because we're an app company rather than an e-commerce or SaaS company, a lot of the effort we put into these pages is largely for the benefit of the press (who often research apps on desktop). The vast majority of end users discover our apps through the App Stores themselves, so we put even more effort into our icon, screenshots, app preview, description, keywords etc.
As for conversion rates, sadly Apple hasn't opened up any analytics to developers for their actual App Store product pages (even though they announced they would a year ago at WWDC), so what users are doing when browsing the actual stores is largely a black box - we have no idea how many people view our app store previews or screenshots etc. or even where they came from (many deep-linking schemes we've looked at are pretty brittle or don't work at all).
Conversion rates on the website landing pages are pretty good - there's not much else to do on those pages than download the app, and chances are you came there with that goal.
I didn't realize this is an active project that happens recently until you reply. It looks nice but in a 2 year ago way. You demo is in iOS6, that is so ancient. I would immediately get turned away by it
It's true that Just Landed hasn't been updated for a while. That will change later this year. We've been working on Patchmania (http://getpatchmania.com) for 2 years, which launched recently.
Honestly, if you're reacting to the video showing iOS 6 I think you're probably focusing on the wrong thing.
Yeah, I'll probably swap our download button for an App Store badge when we next update it. Sadly it's unlikely that I'll ever build an Android version – can't make the economics work.
Public libraries can work but not as well. Problem is the presence of tables - people come to do work and read and don't want to be disturbed. You also don't get such a steady flow of new people as you do at the DMV. And at a library, if you're talking and disturbing visitors you'll quickly be asked to leave. Believe me, I tried it!
Could maybe work, but I tried this without much success. The problem with food courts and cafes is that people often come with a friend or coworkers, and came with a specific purpose in mind (getting food, getting a coffee, having a meeting etc.) and so they're much less receptive to user testing in those environments, especially if they have to break off from their group. Also, the presence of any tables immediately makes it possible for people to use their laptops to do their own work. DMV on the other hand offers no escape, and you're stuck there for a long time until they call your number.
