You don't need a world-class art department to make something people will buy -- you need a clean, usable interface, an original idea that fills a need, and well written code. If you're a one-person shop, you're writing niche applications, anyway. You're not competing directly with Apple, and you most likely don't need any fancy photoshop skills, just the basics... if you're writing an app that requires stunning graphics, then you're either over your head in terms of your project's goals and you need to expand your team to 1+N, or you're already proficient.<p>edit - and it should go without saying, BUT: don't build another twitter app. Please.<p>One more edit: this is a good rebuttal to the "awesome design is necessary!!!" school of thought <a href="http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/07/21/iphone-apps-design-mistakes-overblown-visuals/" rel="nofollow">http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/07/21/iphone-apps-desig...</a><p>Overdesign is not good, either.
I don't buy it.<p>I already have way too many ideas for apps which aren't lush-graphics-heavy that are still very attractive and functional, as well as breaking new ground.<p>Besides, the graphics work doesn't have to be full-time on someone's part. Yes, good graphics work is expensive, but it's generally only part-time, compared to the developer's time, if the app is more than eye candy.<p>So there's plenty of room for the indie.<p>On the other hand, the $30 bar Apple has set for pro apps like iWork is pretty low ($10 each). I'm hoping that serious indie apps will be able to sell in the $10-15-25 range. But only time will tell.<p>At least we know it'll be a different equation from the iPhone market.<p>And, I think PG is fundamentally right: only people who spend time working on the iPad are going to spot the emerging opportunities. It's really a new platform where the possibilities are very hazy, if promising.
I think that if I can learn to make nice graphics, anybody can. It's largely just a few Photoshop filters and techniques. My wife is a graphic design major and she is impressed by my UI graphics, even though I could never hope to draw a simple picture of some natural object.<p>Code still matters a lot when it comes to UIs, though. Motion and interactivity are just as important as the static images found in attractive UIs. For instance, Convert's magnifying-glass effect and Tweetie 2's (now widespread) pull-to-refresh idiom are neat tricks not possible with Photoshop skills alone.
I don't agree that a talented indie developer can't build an immersive, beautiful iPad app. The problem is that it's not worth the risk of investing the time to build it only to get rejected by Apple. Mac apps do not have this problem.<p>Maybe the only way to mitigate the risk of the capricious app store gatekeepers is to build enough relationships with Apple to bypass them (like ngmoco seems to do). Maybe that requires being a big(ger) company.
> Oh, there will be plenty of opportunities for iPad developers, in contracting, vertical markets, and corporate development.<p>The majority of iPhone developers I've personally met make their money from writing and maintaining apps for other companies. The company just needs to go through the iPhone developer application process and pay the annual $99 fee - and no one will ever know (win-win). Yes, they do have their own personal apps and some have done quite well.<p>Oh, and most of the developers I've met have spouses with a relatively stable full-time job (health insurance and financial risk mitigator)
<i>Apple has a world-class art department to produce this stuff. The indie developer in the garage does not.</i><p>That's why it's stupid to try to compete with Apple for things where this matters. Much better to attack niche markets that aren't worth pursuing to players that have the resources to make lavish graphics.<p>The great thing about the Apple platform over the web is you can get away with creating <i>fewer</i> graphic resources. You can make a nice looking app using native controls. I'm hoping that Cappuccino and Aristo do the same for web apps.
Just FYI, next time someone tells you the thick client is dead, hopefully you'll have the good sense to call them a fool on the spot rather than waiting five years for their foolishness to be proven.
In reply to the "return of the thick client", I disagree with the notion that desktop apps are going to beat web apps. The reason why the original web API failed is because the hardware was too poor and WebKit was too immature. This is rapidly changing though.
I do have to say, I was surprised how easy it was to make passable buttons once I bought fireworks (an Adobe PNG tool ostensibly geared towards web mockups). [I'm a professional iPhone/iPad/Android developer.
I wonder if Flash CS5 will extend the iPhone app compilation to iPads as well? Because all the stuff that he's saying is hard for developers to do (nice visual effects and animations) is dead easy in Flash.
Design on mobile platforms is more important than everyday little webapps. There are many mobile apps I'd like to make, but the time of getting it to <i>look fancy</i> is such an unknown that there's an implementation paralysis right from the start.<p>Anybody can write an article, but few people can can produce a full graphically designed issue of GQ alone.<p>Check out the the showcase of mobile apps at <a href="http://wellplacedpixels.com/" rel="nofollow">http://wellplacedpixels.com/</a> then honestly ask yourself if you can produce both the application and graphic design of that quality by yourself.<p>As the song goes:
You got to work to feed the soul / But I can't do this all on my own / No, I know, I'm no Superman