In the early days I just looked to see what was new, swiped down the list and if something seemed interesting I investigated further.

Now though, I mostly look to see what is most purchased (free or paid) and then I may have a quick look to see what is new release.

I look for, purchase and review almost exclusively through the iPhone Appstore and not iTunes. A behaviour that developed due to the app sync failure issues that existed on day 1. I observe that this changes my buying behaviour because I cannot use the iTunes browse mode.

I have also found that product mentions on the web are starting to attract my eye more and I will seek out the product. This happened with Rolando for example and most recently the Australian ABC app. Reading the reviews still plays an important part in my decision making process.

As a final observation. I have noticed my increasing acceptance to paying more for an app. (In Australian Appstore prices) In the early days I was willing to part with $1.19 or Free, with a very rare purchase slightly above that. Something at the $5.99 mark was off the radar. I have noticed that acceptance creep up, now I am less interested in Free, unless it is a compelling product (ABC app), $1.19 has become a “looks interesting buy it and see” and $5.99 is my new “high price”.

I keep wanting to make more use of AppSniper but I observe that the decision making process is not exactly impulsive but if I want it, then I am unlikely to track the app to save $1

There is currently a ‘gold rush’ to make games for the iPhone because developers think they will sell tons. However, there is not much gold when everyone is fishing from the same stream. I expect the production quality of the iPhone games to skyrocket due to the competition which means they will become dominated by the larger game companies. This is what occured on the digital download services for the game consoles after they had a ‘gold rush’ of young developers thinking tons of money would come their way by putting a game up.

[Wow, this is a bit over the top I think.]

First, look at this telling paragraph:
-
Asked about how Apple compared to Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo in gaming, Young replied that he originally anticipated that Apple would act more like those companies, with “significant first party publishing,” long TRC approval times and limited slots for third party offerings. Instead, Young said Apple was focusing on its platform, saying he was “very thankful” of that, and that Apple’s ability to offer the “best development tools and environment” were related to the fact that Apple is promoting its platform as a way to support third party developers rather than as a way to push its own software and make money from software.
-

What a tool Young has become. The essence of a game console is that it is a dedicated game machine, meaning, the hardware is designed for software of the first party. This is very different than a computer whose design purpose is for other applications. In other words, the Wii is a dedicated game machine while the iMac isn’t. The iMac can play games, but the iMac was not designed around the purpose to play games. In the same way, the DS was designed to play games. The iPhone was not. To compare the iPhone to the DS is like comparing the PC to the Wii. Both can play games but only one is designed to be a dedicated game machine (with its hardware designed for that purpose).

Instead of revealing this standard of the game industry, Young becomes a tool by saying Apple is being ‘different’ and is looking out for third party companies by focusing on making a platform for the hardware. Well, by that definition, so is Compaq, Dell, and every other PC manufacturer. The point is that Apple is not a game company, the iPhone is not a dedicated game device. Instead of praising the iPhone as a handheld PC (which can play games), he is furthering misdirection by saying it is similiar to the dedicated game consoles (which it is not).

[I don't follow your logic at all. First party games are software developed by the console vendor. The majority of the desirable games for Nintendo Wii are made by Nintendo, most of the rest is 3rd party shovel-ware. Apple has a couple apps in the 25,000 iPhone library. Apple is running the iPhone platform like a PC maker, because that's what Apple is. It's also borrowing the secured licensing model of the video game industry to keep mobile apps from doing things that would be bad. But unlike game platforms, Apple is intending to make its money from hardware, and it subsequently only charges a 30% cut, compared to the majority cut Microsoft takes for Xbox games. What's your point? I certainly don't see that you have one. ]

Here is a second quote:

-
Console gaming platforms typically lose money on hardware while the game makers, including Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo, earn much of their revenue by charging game developers significant fees to license their titles to run on their gaming platforms. Apple is going the opposite, making its money on hardware sales while aiming running the App Store at a break even to induce developer interest.
-

This isn’t true in the slightest. Only one game console had the strategy to sell hardware at a loss to make up with software which is Sony, and they are currently abandoning that strategy. Microsoft doesn’t count because they lose money no matter what they do. Nintendo, as well as Sega, Atari, and other past console companies, have sold their hardware at a profit. The standard for the game industry is to sell hardware and software for a profit. There is no razor blades model for the game consoles.

[Wait, you're saying that Microsoft and Sony don't count, but console makers from the 80s and 90s do? Nintendo has always been the exception to the rule. Games are a viewed as a software business, not a place to make money on hardware, which is why so many console platforms failed, including 3DO and Dreamcast and Bandai's Pippin. It's hard to make cutting edge game hardware that can be sold cheaply. The iPhone can because its subsidized. The iPod touch works because the iPod brand is sticky. How many open source game consoles have failed? 100% of them. ]

The reason for the higher license fees is because these console companies are creating markets with their console. For example, Nintendo created the Wii market. But Daniel thinks all they did was make a ‘platform’ which isn’t true. Xbox Live and WiiWare are ‘platforms’ but they are not markets unto themselves.

[um, what?]

In other words, when someone buys a Wii or DS, they are buying it to play a game. When someone buys a PC or an iPhone, they MIGHT be buying it to buy a game, but mostly it is for non-game purposes. Even though there are far more PCs than game consoles, there is a bigger gaming market on dedicated game machines than on PCs. Ditto the same for handheld PCs versus handheld game consoles.

How about a third quote?

-
A mobile developer in the audience replied that having such a level playing field actually made it harder to stand out among all the titles available simply because there was no favoritism, describing the resulting marketplace as a “fantastic experience.”
-

Nevermind the fact that this developer likely is invested in the iphone and will carry the water no matter what, that quote applies to any PC and even flash gaming. Whopee. Anyone who believes this is ‘new’ is just a fool.

And what ‘favoritism’ is there in the dedicated game console market? None really. Games there live and die based on the market like any other. Where is all this BS coming from?

[the idea of favoritism was contrasted with what Apple could be doing with its iTunes clout, not what other platform vendors are doing. Whoosh.]

Another quote:

-
Lee, speaking of Blizzard Interactive, talked about the choices involved in porting existing titles to the Phone, such as a tie-in to World of Warcraft, versus developing entirely new IP, saying “it’s all about supporting the biggest breadwinners.”
-

And what software would Blizzard port over? Starcraft and Warcraft won’t work due to the lack of buttons and limited screen real-estate. Ditto for Diablo. I’m convinced Young is just talking out of his @ss. Blizzard makes a game like every four years, why on earth would they put something on a cell-phone?

[The idea is that Blizzard could produce mobile games relate to the Warcraft franchise or develop entirely new games. Nobody is asking for a WOW client. Whoosh. And why: money. ]

One more quote:

-
Gullicksen noted that Nintendo recently announced sales of 100 million units in four years for its Nintendo DS. Asked when the iPhone would hit 100 million, Young answered, “I don’t think the iPhone and iPod touch is slowing down. The iPhone has gone Wii.” Lee said he “wouldn’t be surprised if the iPhone hit 100 million by the end of next year.”
-

This obviously wasn’t a conference but just a marketing event. The iPhone was around 13 million sold since the latter 2008. The DS sales are still ahead of the iPhone at a similar point of time. More importantly, each of those DS sales was a gamer. Not everyone buying an iPhone is buying it for games. In fact, most of them likely are not. To compare dedicated game console sales to a hardware that is not dedicated to games is like comparing apples to oranges, like comparing a PlayStation to a PC.

[The iPhone + iPod touch are a single platform. One has a phone and a camera. The DS and DS Lite aren't counted separately. Apple's mobile platform has sold 30 million units. That's nearly a third of the DS in a fraction of the time. The DS is due to get replaced, the iPhone platform will only expand. I think your take on the conference was overblown. It was a meeting of iPhone people, not a journalistic critique of the platform, but it also wasn't advertising anything. -Dan ]

Come on Daniel. Use your reporting skills and blast this garbage that was being shoveled at the event.